Anti-federalist No.
I
GENERAL INTRODUCTION:
A DANGEROUS PLAN OF BENEFIT ONLY TO THE
"ARISTOCRATICK COMBINATION"
From The Boston Gazette and Country Journal, November 26, 1787.
I am pleased to see a spirit of inquiry burst the band of
constraint upon the subject of the NEW PLAN for consolidating the governments of
the united States, as recommended by the late Convention.
If it is suitable
to the GENIUS and HABITS of the citizens of these states, it will bear the
strictest scrutiny. The PEOPLE are the grand inquest who have a RIGHT to judge
of its merits. The hideous daemon of Aristocracy has hitherto had so much
influence as to bar the channels of investigation, preclude the people from
inquiry and extinguish every spark of liberal information of its qualities. At
length the luminary of intelligence begins to beam its effulgent rays upon this
important production; the deceptive mists cast before the eyes of the people by
the delusive machinations of its INTERESTED advocates begins to dissipate, as
darkness flies before the burning taper; and I dare venture to predict, that in
spite of those mercenary dectaimers, the plan will have a candid and complete
examination.
Those furious zealots who are for cramming it down the throats
of the people, without allowing them either time or opportunity to scan or weigh
it in the balance of their understandings, bear the same marks in their features
as those who have been long wishing to erect an aristocracy in THIS COMMONWEALTH
[of Massachusetts].
Their menacing cry is for a RIGID government, it matters
little to them of what kind, provided it answers THAT description. As the plan
now offered comes something near their wishes, and is the most consonant to
their views of any they can hope for, they come boldly forward and DEMAND its
adoption.
They brand with infamy every man who is not as determined and
zealous in its favor as themselves.
They cry aloud the whole must be
swallowed or none at all, thinking thereby to preclude any amendment; they are
afraid of having it abated of its present RIGID aspect.
They have strived to
overawe or seduce printers to stifle and obstruct a free discussion, and have
endeavored to hasten it to a decision before the people can duty reflect upon
its properties. In order to deceive them, they incessantly declare that none can
discover any defect in the system but bankrupts who wish no government, and
officers of the present government who fear to lose a part of their power.
These zealous partisans may injure their own cause, and endanger the public
tranquility by impeding a proper inquiry; the people may suspect the WHOLE to be
a dangerous plan, from such COVERED and DESIGNING schemes to enforce it upon
them. Compulsive or treacherous measures to establish any government whatever,
will always excite jealousy among a free people: better remain single and alone,
than blindly adopt whatever a few individuals shall demand, be they ever so
wise. I had rather be a free citizen of the small republic of Massachusetts,
than an oppressed subject of the great American empire. Let all act
understandingly or not at all. If we can confederate upon terms that wilt secure
to us our liberties, it is an object highly desirable, because of its additional
security to the whole. If the proposed plan proves such an one, I hope it will
be adopted, but if it will endanger our liberties as it stands, let it be
amended; in order to which it must and ought to be open to inspection and free
inquiry.
The inundation of abuse that has been thrown out upon the heads of
those who have had any doubts of its universal good qualities, have been so
redundant, that it may not be improper to scan the characters of its most
strenuous advocates. It will first be allowed that many undesigning citizens may
wish its adoption from the best motives, but these are modest and silent, when
compared to the greater number, who endeavor to suppress all attempts for
investigation. These violent partisans are for having the people gulp down the
gilded pill blindfolded, whole, and without any qualification whatever. These
consist generally, of the NOBLE order of Cincinnatus, holders of public
securities, men of great wealth and expectations of public office, Bankers
and Lawyers: these with their train of dependents form the Aristocratick
combination.
The Lawyers in particular, keep up an incessant declamation for
its adoption; like greedy gudgeons they long to satiate their voracious stomachs
with the golden bait. The numerous tribunals to be erected by the new plan of
consolidated empire, will find employment for ten times their present numbers;
these are the LOAVES AND FISHES for which they hunger. They will probably find
it suited to THEIR HABITS, if not to the HABITS OF THE PEOPLE. There may be
reasons for having but few of them in the State Convention, lest THEIR 'OWN'
INTEREST should be too strongly considered. The time draws near for the choice
of Delegates. I hope my fellow-citizens will look well to the characters of
their preference, and remember the Old Patriots of 75; they have never led them
astray, nor need they fear to try them on this momentous occasion.
A FEDERALIST
Anti-federalist No.
2
"WE HAVE BEEN TOLD OF
PHANTOMS"
This essay is an excerpted from a speech of William Grayson,
June 11, 1788, in Jonathan Elliot (ed.), The Debates in the Several State
Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution....... (Philadelphia,
1876) 5 vols., III, 274-79.
The adoption of this government will not meliorate our own
particular system. I beg leave to consider the circumstances of the Union
antecedent to the meeting of the Convention at Philadelphia. We have been told
of phantoms and ideal dangers to lead us into measures which will, in my
opinion, be the ruin of our country. If the existence of those dangers cannot be
proved, if there be no apprehension of wars, if there be no rumors of wars, it
will place the subject in a different light, and plainly evince to the world
that there cannot be any reason for adopting measures which we apprehend to be
ruinous and destructive. When this state [Virginia] proposed that the general
government should be improved, Massachusetts was just recovered from a rebellion
which had brought the republic to the brink of destruction from a rebellion
which was crushed by that federal government which is now so much contemned and
abhorred. A vote of that august body for fifteen hundred men, aided by the
exertions of the state, silenced all opposition, and shortly restored the public
tranquility. Massachusetts was satisfied that these internal commotions were so
happily settled, and was unwilling to risk any similar distresses by theoretic
experiments. Were the Eastern States willing to enter into this measure? Were
they willing to accede to the proposal of Virginia? In what manner was it
received? Connecticut revolted at the idea. The Eastern States, sir, were
unwilling to recommend a meeting of a convention. They were well aware of the
dangers of revolutions and changes. Why was every effort used, and such uncommon
pains taken, to bring it about? This would have been unnecessary, had it been
approved of by the people. Was Pennsylvania disposed for the reception of this
project of reformation? No, sir. She was even unwilling to amend her revenue
laws, so as to make the five per centum operative. She was satisfied with things
as they were. There was no complaint, that ever I heard of, from any other part
of the Union, except Virginia. This being the case among ourselves, what dangers
were there to be apprehended from foreign nations? It will be easily shown that
dangers from that quarter were absolutely imaginary. Was not France friendly?
Unequivocally so. She was devising new regulations of commerce for our
advantage. Did she harass us with applications for her money? Is it likely that
France will quarrel with us? Is it not reasonable to suppose that she will be
more desirous than ever to cling, after losing the Dutch republic, to her best
ally? How are the Dutch? We owe them money, it is true; and are they not willing
that we should owe them more? Mr. [John] Adams applied to them for a new loan to
the poor, despised Confederation. They readily granted it. The Dutch have a
fellow-feeling for us. They were in the same situation with
ourselves.
I believe that the money which the Dutch borrowed of Henry IV is
not yet paid. How did they pass Queen Elizabeth's loan? At a very considerable
discount. They took advantage of the weakness and necessities of James I, and
made their own terms with that contemptible monarch. Loans from nations are not
like loans from private men. Nations lend money, and grant assistance, to one
another, from views of national interest-France was willing to pluck the fairest
feather out of the British crown. This was her object in aiding us. She will not
quarrel with us on pecuniary considerations. Congress considered it in this
point of view; for when a proposition was made to make it a debt of private
persons, it was rejected without hesitation. That respectable body wisely
considered, that, while we remained their debtors in so considerable a degree,
they would not be inattentive to our interest.
With respect to Spain, she is friendly in a high degree. I wish
to know by whose interposition was the treaty with Morocco made. Was it not by
that of the king of Spain? Several predatory nations disturbed us, on going into
the Mediterranean. The influence of Charles III at the Barbary court, and four
thousand pounds, procured as good a treaty with Morocco as could be expected.
But I acknowledge it is not of any consequence, since the Algerines and people
of Tunis have not entered into similar measures. We have nothing to fear from
Spain; and, were she hostile, she could never be formidable to this country. Her
strength is so scattered, that she never can be dangerous to us either in peace
or war. As to Portugal, we have a treaty with her, which may be very
advantageous, though it be not yet ratified.
The domestic debt is diminished by considerable sales of western
lands to Cutler, Sergeant, and Company; to Simms; and to Royal, Flint, and
Company. The board of treasury is authorized to sell in Europe, or any where
else, the residue of those lands.
An act of Congress has passed, to adjust the public debts
between the individual states and the United States.
Was our trade in a despicable situation? I shall say nothing of
what did not come under my own observation. When I was in Congress, sixteen
vessels had had sea letters in the East India trade, and two hundred vessels
entered and cleared out, in the French West India Islands, in one
year.
I must confess that public credit has suffered, and that our
public creditors have been ill used. This was owing to a fault at the
head-quarters-to Congress themselves-in not selling the western lands at an
earlier period. If requisitions have not been complied with, it must be owing to
Congress, who might have put the unpopular debts on the back lands. Commutation
is abhorrent to New England ideas. Speculation is abhorrent to the Eastern
States. Those inconveniences have resulted from the bad policy of
Congress.
There are certain modes of governing the people which will
succeed. There are others which will not. The idea of consolidation is abhorrent
to the people of this country. How were the sentiments of the people before the
meeting of the Convention at Philadelphia? They had only one object in view.
Their ideas reached no farther than to give the general government the five per
centum impost, and the regulation of trade. When it was agitated in Congress, in
a committee of the whole, this was all that was asked, or was deemed necessary.
Since that period, their views have extended much farther. Horrors have been
greatly magnified since the rising of the Convention.
We are now told by the honorable gentleman (Governor Randolph)
that we shall have wars and rumors of wars, that every calamity is to attend us,
and that we shall be ruined and disunited forever, unless we adopt this
Constitution. Pennsylvania and Maryland are to fall upon us from the north, like
the Goths and Vandals of old; the Algerines, whose flat-sided vessels never came
farther than Madeira, are to fill the Chesapeake with mighty fleets, and to
attack us on our front; the Indians are to invade us with numerous armies on our
rear, in order to convert our cleared lands into hunting- grounds; and the
Carolinians, from the south, (mounted on alligators, I presume,) are to come and
destroy our cornfields, and eat up our little children! These, sir, are the
mighty dangers which await us if we reject dangers which are merely imaginary,
and ludicrous in the extreme! Are we to be destroyed by Maryland and
Pennsylvania? What will democratic states make war for, and how long since have
they imbibed a hostile spirit?
But the generality are to attack us. Will they attack us after
violating their faith in the first Union? Will they not violate their faith if
they do not take us into their confederacy? Have they not agreed, by the old
Confederation, that the Union shall be perpetual, and that no alteration should
take place without the consent of Congress, and the confirmation of the
legislatures of every state? I cannot think that there is such depravity in
mankind as that, after violating public faith so flagrantly, they should make
war upon us, also, for not following their example.
The large states have divided the back lands among themselves,
and have given as much as they thought proper to the generality. For the fear of
disunion, we are told that we ought to take measures which we otherwise should
not. Disunion is impossible. The Eastern States hold the fisheries, which are
their cornfields, by a hair. They have a dispute with the British government
about their limits at this moment. Is not a general and strong government
necessary for their interest? If ever nations had inducements to peace, the
Eastern States now have. New York and Pennsylvania anxiously look forward for
the fur trade. How can they obtain it but by union? Can the western posts be got
or retained without union? How are the little states inclined? They are not
likely to disunite. Their weakness will prevent them from quarrelling. Little
men are seldom fond of quarrelling among giants. Is there not a strong
inducement to union, while the British are on one side and the Spaniards on the
other? Thank Heaven, we have a Carthage of our own I . . .
But what would I do on the present occasion to remedy the
existing defects of the present Confederation? There are two opinions prevailing
in the world-the one, that mankind can only be governed by force; the other,
that they are capable of freedom and a good government. Under a supposition that
mankind can govern themselves, I would recommend that the present Confederation
should be amended. Give Congress the regulation of commerce. Infuse new strength
and spirit into the state governments; for, when the component parts are strong,
it will give energy to the government, although it be otherwise
weak....
Apportion the public debts in such a manner as to throw the
unpopular ones on the back lands. Call only for requisitions for the foreign
interest and aid them by loans. Keep on so till the American character be marked
with some certain features. We are yet too young to know what we are fit for.
The continual migration of people from Europe, and the settlement of new
countries on our western frontiers, are strong arguments against making new
experiments now in government. When these things are removed, we can with
greater prospect of success, devise changes. We ought to consider, as
Montesquieu says, whether the construction of the government be suitable to the
genius and disposition of the people, as well as a variety of other
circumstances.
Anti-federalist No. 3
NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT; WILL NOT ABATE FOREIGN INFLUENCE; DANGERS OF CIVIL WAR AND
DESPOTISM
Like the nome de plume "Publius" used by pro Constitution
writers in the Federalist Papers, several Anti-federalists signed their writings
"A FARMER." While the occupation of the writers may not have
coincided with the name given, the arguments against consolodating power in the
hands of a central government were widely read. The following was published in
the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788. The true identity
of the author is unknown.
"There are but two modes by which men are connected in society,
the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to
be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments
together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth,
despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate
corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been
denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore
improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed
constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of
imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national
men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in
the only true and strict sense of the word.
Whether any form of national government is preferable for the
Americans, to a league or confederacy, is a previous question we must first make
up our minds upon....
That a national government will add to the dignity and increase
the splendor of the united States abroad, can admit of no doubt: it is
essentially requisite for both. That it will render government, and officers of
government, more dignified at home is equally certain. That these objects are
more suited to the manners, if not [the] genius and disposition of our people
is, I fear, also true. That it is requisite in order to keep us at peace among
ourselves, is doubtful. That it is necessary, to prevent foreigners from
dividing us, or interfering in our government, I deny positively; and, after
all, I have strong doubts whether all its advantages are not more specious than
solid. We are vain, like other nations. We wish to make a noise in the world;
and feel hurt that Europeans are not so attentive to America in peace, as they
were to America in war. We are also, no doubt, desirous of cutting a figure in
history. Should we not reflect, that quiet is happiness? That content and pomp
are incompatible? I have either read or heard this truth, which the Americans
should never forget: That the silence of historians is the surest record of the
happiness of a people. The Swiss have been four hundred years the envy of
mankind, and there is yet scarcely an history of their nation. What is history,
but a disgusting and painful detail of the butcheries of conquerors, and the
woeful calamities of the conquered? Many of us are proud, and are frequently
disappointed that office confers neither respect or difference. No man of merit
can ever be disgraced by office. A rogue in office may be feared in some
governments - he will be respected in none. After all, what we call respect and
difference only arise from contrast of situation, as most of our ideas come by
comparison and relation. Where the people are free there can be no great
contrast or distinction among honest citizens in or out of office. In proportion
as the people lose their freedom, every gradation of distinction, between the
Governors and governed obtains, until the former become masters, and the latter
become slaves. In all governments virtue will command reverence. The divine Cato
knew every Roman citizen by name, and never assumed any preeminence; yet Cato
found, and his memory will find, respect and reverence in the bosoms of mankind,
until this world returns into that nothing, from whence Omnipotence called it.
That the people are not at present disposed for, and are actually incapable of,
governments of simplicity and equal rights, I can no longer doubt. But whose
fault is it? We make them bad, by bad governments, and then abuse and despise
them for being so. Our people are capable of being made anything that human
nature was or is capable of, if we would only have a little patience and give
them good and wholesome institutions; but I see none such and very little
prospect of such. Alas! I see nothing in my fellow-citizens, that will permit my
still fostering the delusion, that they are now capable of sustaining the weight
of SELF-GOVERNMENT: a burden to which Greek and Roman shoulders proved unequal.
The honor of supporting the dignity of the human character, seems reserved to
the hardy Helvetians alone. If the body of the people will not govern
themselves, and govern themselves well too, the consequence is unavoidable - a
FEW will, and must govern them. Then it is that government becomes truly a
government by force only, where men relinquish part of their natural rights to
secure the rest, instead of an union of will and force, to protect all their
natural rights, which ought to be the foundation of every rightful social
compact.
Whether national government will be productive
of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a
conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be
disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people
being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they
would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted-as they do at this
day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless
cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted
differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the
operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn
(which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through
that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of
the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into
uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only
be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments,
partial interests, or private views to gratify.
That a national government will prevent the influence or danger
of foreign intrigue, or secure us from invasion, is in my judgment directly the
reverse of the truth. The only foreign, or at least evil foreign influence, must
be obtained through corruption. Where the government is lodged in the body of
the people, as in Switzerland, they can never be corrupted; for no prince, or
people, can have resources enough to corrupt the majority of a nation; and if
they could, the play is not worth the candle. The facility of corruption is
increased in proportion as power tends by representation or delegation, to a
concentration in the hands of a few. . . .
As to any nation attacking a number of confederated independent
republics ... it is not to be expected, more especially as the wealth of the
empire is there universally diffused, and will not be collected into any one
overgrown, luxurious and effeminate capital to become a lure to the enterprizing
ambitious. That extensive empire is a misfortune to be deprecated, will not now
be disputed. The balance of power has long engaged the attention of all the
European world, in order to avoid the horrid evils of a general government. The
same government pervading a vast extent of territory, terrifies the minds of
individuals into meanness and submission. All human authority, however
organized, must have confined limits, or insolence and oppression will prove the
offspring of its grandeur, and the difficulty or rather impossibility of escape
prevents resistance. Gibbon relates that some Roman Knights who had offended
government in Rome were taken up in Asia, in a very few days after. It was the
extensive territory of the Roman republic that produced a Sylla, a Marius, a
Caligula, a Nero, and an Elagabalus. In small independent States contiguous to
each other, the people run away and leave despotism to reek its vengeance on
itself; and thus it is that moderation becomes with them, the law of
self-preservation. These and such reasons founded on the eternal and immutable
nature of things have long caused and will continue to cause much difference of
sentiment throughout our wide extensive territories. From our divided and
dispersed situation, and from the natural moderation of the American character,
it has hitherto proved a warfare of argument and reason."
A FARMER
Anti-federalist No.
4
FOREIGN WARS, CIVIL WARS, AND INDIAN WARS
- THREE BUGBEARS
Patrick Henry was a somewhat the antithesis to James Madison of
Federalist note. While every bit as emotional a writer, Henry (who penned the
well remembered "Give Me Liberty of Give Me Death" phrase)
opposed the new Constitution for many reasons. He delivered long speeches to the
Virginia Ratification convention June 5, 7, and 9, 1788. The following is taken
from Elliot's Debates, 111, 46, 48, 141-42, 150-56.
" If we recollect, on last Saturday, I made some observations on
some of those dangers which these gentlemen would fain persuade us hang over the
citizens of this commonwealth [Virginia] to induce us to change the government,
and adopt the new plan. Unless there be great and awful dangers, the change is
dangerous, and the experiment ought not to be made. In estimating the magnitude
of these dangers, we are obliged to take a most serious view of them--to see
them, to handle them, and to be familiar with them. It is not sufficient to
feign mere imaginary dangers; there must be a dreadful reality. The great
question between us is: Does that reality exist? These dangers are partially
attributed to bad laws, execrated by the community at large. It is said the
people wish to change the government. I should be happy to meet them on that
ground. Should the people wish to change it, we should be innocent of the
dangers. It is a fact that the people do not wish to change their government.
How am I to prove it? It will rest on my bare assertion, unless supported by an
internal conviction in men's breasts. My poor say-so is a mere nonentity. But,
sir, I am persuaded that four fifths of the people of Virginia must have
amendments to the new plan, to reconcile them to a change of their government.
It is a slippery foundation for the people to rest their political salvation on
my or their assertions. No government can flourish unless it be founded on the
affection of the people. Unless gentlemen can be sure that this new system is
founded on that ground, they ought to stop their career.
I will not repeat what the gentlemen say - I will mention one
thing. There is a dispute between us and the Spaniards about the right of
navigating the Mississippi .... Seven states wished to relinquish this river to
them. The six Southern states opposed it. Seven states not being sufficient to
convey it away, it remains now ours....
There is no danger of a dismemberment of our country, unless a
Constitution be adopted which will enable the government to plant enemies on our
backs. By the Confederation, the rights of territory are secured. No treaty can
be made without the consent of nine states. While the consent of nine states is
necessary to the cession of territory, you are safe. If it be put in the power
of a less number, you will most infallibly lose the Mississippi. As long as we
can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety. This new Constitution
will involve in its operation the loss of the navigation of that valuable
river.
The honorable gentleman [either James Madison or Edmund
Randolph], cannot be ignorant of the Spanish transactions [the Jay-Gardoqui
negotiations]. A treaty had been nearly entered into with Spain, to relinquish
that navigation. That relinquishment would absolutely have taken place, had the
consent of seven states been sufficient ... This new government, I conceive,
will enable those states who have already discovered their inclination that way,
to give away this river....
We are threatened with danger [according to some,] for the
non-payment of our debt due to France. We have information come from an
illustrious citizen of Virginia, who is now in Paris, which disproves the
suggestions of such danger. This citizen has not been in the airy regions of
theoretic speculation-our ambassador [Thomas Jefferson] is this worthy citizen.
The ambassador of the united States of America is not so despised as the
honorable gentleman would make us believe. A servant of a republic is as much
respected as that of a monarch. The honorable gentleman tells us that hostile
fleets are to be sent to make reprisals upon us. Our ambassador tells you that
the king of France has taken into consideration to enter into commercial
regulations, on reciprocal terms, with us, which will be of peculiar advantage
to us. Does this look like hostility? I might go farther. I might say, not from
public authority, but good information, that his opinion is, that you reject
this government. His character and abilities are in the highest estimation; he
is well acquainted, in every respect, with this country; equally so with the
policy of the European nations. Let us follow the sage advice of this common
friend of our happiness.
It is little usual for nations to send armies to collect debts.
The house of Bourbon, that great friend of America, will never attack her for
her unwilling delay of payment. Give me leave to say, that Europe is too much
engaged about objects of greater importance, to attend to us. On that great
theatre of the world, the little American matters vanish. Do you believe that
the mighty monarch of France, beholding the greatest scenes that ever engaged
the attention of a prince of that country, will divert himself from those
important objects, and now call for a settlement of accounts with America? This
proceeding is not warranted by good sense. The friendly disposition to us, and
the actual situation of France, render the idea of danger from that quarter
absurd. Would this countryman of ours be fond of advising us to a measure which
he knew to be dangerous? And can it be reasonably supposed that he can be
ignorant of any premeditated hostility against this country? The honorable
gentleman may suspect the account; but I will do our friend the justice to say,
that he would warn us of any danger from France.
Do you suppose the Spanish monarch will risk a contest with the
United States, when his feeble colonies are exposed to them? Every advance the
people make to the westward, makes them tremble for Mexico and Peru. Despised as
we are among ourselves, under our present government, we are terrible to that
monarchy. If this be not a fact, it is generally said so.
We are, in the next place, frightened by dangers from Holland.
We must change our government to escape the wrath of that republic. Holland
groans under a government like this new one. A stadtholder, sir, a Dutch
president, has brought on that country miseries which will not permit them to
collect debts with fleets or armies ... This President will bring miseries on us
like those of Holland. Such is the condition of European affairs, that it would
be unsafe for them to send fleets or armies to collect debts.
But here, sir, they make a transition to objects of another
kind. We are presented with dangers of a very uncommon nature. I am not
acquainted with the arts of painting. Some gentlemen have a peculiar talent for
them. They are practised with great ingenuity on this occasion. As a counterpart
to what we have already been intimidated with, we are told that some lands have
been sold, which cannot be found; and that this will bring war on this country.
Here the picture will not stand examination. Can it be supposed, if a few land
speculators and jobbers have violated the principles of probity, that it will
involve this country in war? Is there no redress to be otherwise obtained, even
admitting the delinquents and sufferers to be numerous? When gentlemen are thus
driven to produce imaginary dangers, to induce this Convention to assent to this
change, I am sure it will not be uncandid to say that the change itself is
really dangerous. Then the Maryland compact is broken, and will produce perilous
consequences. I see nothing very terrible in this. The adoption of the new
system will not remove the evil. Will they forfeit good neighborhood with us,
because the compact is broken? Then the disputes concerning the Carolina line
are to involve us in dangers. A strip of land running from the westward of the
Alleghany to the Mississippi, is the subject of this pretended dispute. I do not
know the length or breadth of this disputed spot. Have they not regularly
confirmed our right to it, and relinquished all claims to it? I can venture to
pledge that the people of Carolina will never disturb us. . . . Then, sir, comes
Pennsylvania, in terrible array. Pennsylvania is to go in conflict with
Virginia. Pennsylvania has been a good neighbor heretofore. She is federal-
-something terrible--Virginia cannot look her in the face. If we sufficiently
attend to the actual situation of things, we shall conclude that Pennsylvania
will do what we do. A number of that country are strongly opposed to it. Many of
them have lately been convinced of its fatal tendency. They are disgorged of
their federalism. . . . Place yourselves in their situation; would you fight
your neighbors for considering this great and awful matter? . . . Whatever may
be the disposition of the aristocratical politicians of that country, I know
there are friends of human nature in that state. If so, they will never make war
on those who make professions of what they are attached to
themselves.
As to the danger arising from borderers, it is mutual and
reciprocal. If it be dangerous for Virginia, it is equally so for them. It will
be their true interest to be united with us. The danger of our being their
enemies will be a prevailing argument in our favor. It will be as powerful to
admit us into the Union, as a vote of adoption, without previous amendments,
could possibly be.
Then the savage Indians are to destroy us. We cannot look them
in the face. The danger is here divided; they are as terrible to the other
states as to us. But, sir, it is well known that we have nothing to fear from
them. Our back settlers are considerably stronger than they. Their superiority
increases daily. Suppose the states to be confederated all around us; what we
want in numbers, we shall make up otherwise. Our compact situation and natural
strength will secure us. But, to avoid all dangers, we must take shelter under
the federal government. Nothing gives a decided importance but this federal
government. You will sip sorrow, according to the vulgar phrase, if you want any
other security than the laws of Virginia....
Where is the danger? If, sir, there was any, I would recur to
the American spirit to defend us; that spirit which has enabled us to surmount
the greatest difficulties--to that illustrious spirit I address my most fervent
prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty. Let not
gentlemen be told that it is not safe to reject this government. Wherefore is it
not safe? We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they
cannot be demonstrated....
The Confederation, this despised government, merits, in my
opinion, the highest encomium--it carried us through a long and dangerous war;
it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation; it has
secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses--and shall a
government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility,
and abandoned for want of energy? Consider what you are about to do before you
part with the government. Take longer time in reckoning things; revolutions like
this have happened in almost every country in Europe; similar examples are to be
found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome- -instances of the people losing their
liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned .
. . against faction and turbulence. I acknowledge that licentiousness is
dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against. I acknowledge, also, the
new form of government may effectually prevent it. Yet there is another thing it
will as effectually do - - it will oppress and ruin the people. "
Anti-federalist No.
5
SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND - A CASE IN
POINT
The ongoing Federalist essays appeared from October of 1787 to
May of 1788. Rebuttals (Anti-federalist in nature) to Federalist writers seldom
were published. This selection was an answer to Publius [John Jay] Federalist
No. 5. This article by "AN OBSERVER," was printed in The New-York Journal and
was reprinted in the [Boston] American Herald on December 3, 1787.
A writer, under the signature Publius or The Federalist, No. V,
in the Daily Advertiser, and in the New York Packet, with a view of proving the
advantages which, he says, will be derived by the states if the new constitution
is adopted, has given extracts of a letter from Queen Anne to the Scotch
parliament, on the subject of a union between Scotland and England.
I would beg leave to remark, that Publius has been very
unfortunate in selecting these extracts as a case in point, to convince the
people of America of the benefits they would derive from a
union, under such a government as would be effected by the new
system. It is a certainty, that when the union was the subject
of debate in the Scottish legislature, some of their most sensible and
disinterested nobles, as well as commoners! (who were not corrupted by English
gold), violently opposed the union, and predicted that the people of Scotland
would, in fact, derive no advantages from a consolidation of government with
England; but, on the contrary, they would bear a great proportion of her debt,
and furnish large bodies of men to assist in her wars with France, with whom,
before the union, Scotland was at all times on terms of the most cordial amity.
It was also predicted that the representation in the parliament of Great
Britain, particularly in the house of commons, was too small; forty-five members
being very far from the proportion of Scotland, when its extent and numbers were
duly considered; and that even they, being so few, might (or at least a majority
of them might) at all times be immediately under the influence of the English
ministry; and, of course, very little of their attention would be given to the
true interest of their constituents, especially if they came in competition with
the prospects of views of the ministry. How far these predictions have been
verified I believe it will not require much trouble to prove. It must be obvious
to everyone, the least acquainted with English history, that since the union of
the two nations the great body of the people in Scotland are in a much worse
situation now, than they would be, were they a separate nation. This will be
fully illustrated by attending to the great emigrations which are made to
America. For if the people could have but a common support at home, it is
unreasonable to suppose that such large numbers would quit their country, break
from the tender ties of kindred and friendship and trust themselves on a
dangerous voyage across a vast ocean, to a country of which they can know but
very little except by common report. I will only further remark, that it is not
about two or three years since a member of the British parliament (I believe Mr.
Dempster) gave a most pathetic description of the sufferings of the commonalty
of Scotland, particularly on the sea coast, and endeavored to call the attention
of parliament to their distresses, and afford them some relief by encouraging
their fisheries. It deserves also to be remembered, that the people of Scotland,
in the late war between France and Great Britain, petitioned to have arms and
ammunition supplied them by their general government, for their defense,
alleging that they were incapable of defending themselves and their property
from an invasion unless they were assisted by government. It is a truth that
their petitions were disregarded, and reasons were assigned, that it would be
dangerous to entrust them with the means of defense, as they would then have it
in their power to break the union. From this representation of the situation of
Scotland, surely no one can draw any conclusion that this country would derive
happiness or security from a government which would, in reality, give the people
but the mere name of being free. For if the representation, stipulated by the
constitution, framed by the late convention, be attentively and dispassionately
considered, it must be obvious to every disinterested observer (besides many
other weighty objections which will present themselves to view), that the number
is not, by any means, adequate to the present inhabitants of this extensive
continent, much less to those it will contain at a future period.
I observe that the writer above mentioned, takes great pains to
show the disadvantages which would result from three or four distinct
confederacies of these states. I must confess that I have not seen, in any of
the pieces published against the proposed constitution, any thing which gives
the most distant idea that their writers are in favor of such governments; but
it is clear these objections arise from a consolidation not affording security
for the liberties of their country, and from hence it must evidently appear,
that the design of Publius, in artfully holding up to public view [the bugbear
of] such confederacies, can be with no other intention than wilfully to deceive
his fellow citizens. I am confident it must be, and that it is, the sincere wish
of every true friend to the United States, that there should be a confederated
national government, but that it should be one which would have a control over
national and external matters only, and not interfere with the internal
regulations and police of the different states in the union. Such a government,
while it would give us respectability abroad, would not encroach upon, or
subvert our liberties at home.
AN OBSERVER
Anti-federalist No.
6
THE HOBGOBLINS OF
ANARCHY AND DISSENSIONS AMONG THE
STATES
One of largest series of Antifederalist essays was penned under
the pseudonym "CENTINEL." The Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer ran this 24
essay series between October 5, 1787 and November 24, 1788.
Some historians feel most of the "Centinel" letters were written
by Samuel Bryan, and a few by Eleazer Oswald, owner of the Independent
Gazetteer. A more recent study by Charles Page Smith, James Wilson, Founding
Father (Chapel Hill, 1956), refrains from making such theory
This selection is from the eleventh letter of "Centinel,"
appearing in the Independent Gazetteer on January 16, 1788.
" The evils of anarchy have been portrayed with all the imagery
of language in the growing colors of eloquence; the affrighted mind is thence
led to clasp the new Constitution as the instrument of deliverance, as the only
avenue to safety and happiness. To avoid the possible and transitory evils of
one extreme, it is seduced into the certain and permanent misery necessarily
attendant on the other. A state of anarchy from its very nature can never be of
long continuance; the greater its violence the shorter the duration. Order and
security are immediately sought by the distracted people beneath the shelter of
equal laws and the salutary restraints of regular government; and if this be not
attainable, absolute power is assumed by the one, or a few, who shall be the
most enterprising and successful. If anarchy, therefore, were the inevitable
consequence of rejecting the new Constitution, it would be infinitely better to
incur it, for even then there would be at least the chance of a good government
rising out of licentiousness. But to rush at once into despotism because there
is a bare possibility of anarchy ensuing from the rejection, or from what is yet
more visionary, the small delay that would be occasioned by a revision and
correction of the proposed system of government is so superlatively weak, so
fatally blind, that it is astonishing any person of common understanding should
suffer such an imposition to have the least influence on his judgment; still
more astonishing that so flimsy and deceptive a doctrine should make converts
among the enlightened freemen of America, who have so long enjoyed the blessings
of liberty. But when I view among such converts men otherwise pre-eminent it
raises a blush for the weakness of humanity that these, her brightest ornaments,
should be so dimsighted to what is self-evident to most men, that such
imbecility of judgment should appear where so much perfection was looked for.
This ought to teach us to depend more on our own judgment and the nature of the
case than upon the opinions of the greatest and best of men, who, from
constitutional infirmities or particular situations, may sometimes view an
object through a delusive medium; but the opinions of great men are more
frequently the dictates of ambition or private interest.
The source of the apprehensions of this so much dreaded anarchy
would upon investigation be found to arise from the artful suggestions of
designing men, and not from a rational probability grounded on the actual state
of affairs. The least reflection is sufficient to detect the fallacy to show
that there is no one circumstance to justify the prediction of such an event. On
the contrary a short time will evince, to the utter dismay and confusion of the
conspirators, that a perseverance in cramming down their scheme of power upon
the freemen of this State [Pennsylvania] will inevitably produce an anarchy
destructive of their darling domination, and may kindle a flame prejudicial to
their safety. They should be cautious not to trespass too far on the forbearance
of freemen when wresting their dearest concerns, but prudently retreat from the
gathering storm.
The other specter that has been raised to terrify and alarm the
people out of the exercise of their judgment on this great occasion, is the
dread of our splitting into separate confederacies or republics, that might
become rival powers and consequently liable to mutual wars from the usual
motives of contention. This is an event still more improbable than the
foregoing. It is a presumption unwarranted, either by the situation of affairs,
or the sentiments of the people; no disposition leading to it exists; the
advocates of the new constitution seem to view such a separation with horror,
and its opponents are strenuously contending for a confederation that shall
embrace all America under its comprehensive and salutary protection. This
hobgoblin appears to have sprung from the deranged brain of Publius, [The
Federalist] a New York writer, who, mistaking sound for argument, has with
Herculean labor accumulated myriads of unmeaning sentences, and mechanically
endeavored to force conviction by a torrent of misplaced words. He might have
spared his readers the fatigue of wading through his long-winded disquisitions
on the direful effects of the contentions of inimical states, as totally
inapplicable to the subject he was professedly treating; this writer has devoted
much time, and wasted more paper in combating chimeras of his own creation.
However, for the sake of argument, I will admit that the necessary consequence
of rejecting or delaying the establishment of the new constitution would be the
dissolution of the union, and the institution of even rival and inimical
republics; yet ought such an apprehension, if well founded, to drive us into the
fangs of despotism? Infinitely preferable would be occasional wars to such an
event. The former, although a severe scourge, is transient in its continuance,
and in its operation partial, but a small proportion of the community are
exposed to its greatest horrors, and yet fewer experience its greatest evils;
the latter is permanent and universal misery, without remission or exemption. As
passing clouds obscure for a time the splendor of the sun, so do wars interrupt
the welfare of mankind; but despotism is a settled gloom that totally
extinguishes happiness. Not a ray of comfort can penetrate to cheer the dejected
mind; the goad of power with unabating rigor insists upon the utmost exaction;
like a merciless taskmaster, [it] is continually inflicting the lash, and is
never satiated with the feast of unfeeling domination, or the most abject
servility.
The celebrated Lord Kaims, whose disquisitions of human nature
evidence extraordinary strength of judgment and depth of investigation, says
that a continual civil war, which is the most destructive and horrible scene of
human discord, is preferable to the uniformity of wretchedness and misery
attendant upon despotism; of all possible evils, as I observed in my first
number, this is the worst and the most to be dreaded.
I congratulate my fellow citizens that a good government, the
greatest earthly blessing, may be so easily obtained, that our circumstances are
so favorable, that nothing but the folly of the conspirators can produce anarchy
or civil war, which would presently terminate in their destruction and the
permanent harmony of the state, alone interrupted by their ambitious
machinations. "
CENTINEL
Anti-federalist No. 7
ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL LEAD
TO CIVIL WAR
"PHILANTHROPOS," (an anonymous Virginia Anti-federalist)
appeared in The Virginia Journal and Alexandria Advertiser, December 6, 1787,
writing his version of history under the proposed new Constitution.
The time in which the constitution or government of a nation
undergoes any particular change, is always interesting and critical. Enemies are
vigilant, allies are in suspense, friends hesitating between hope and fear; and
all men are in eager expectation to see what such a change may produce. But the
state of our affairs at present, is of such moment, as even to arouse the dead
...
[A certain defender of the Constitution has stated that
objections to it] are more calculated to alarm the fears of the people than to
answer any valuable end. Was that the case, as it is not, will any man in his
sober senses say, that the least infringement or appearance of infringement on
our liberty - that liberty which has lately cost so much blood and treasure,
together with anxious days and sleepless nights-ought not both to rouse our
fears and awaken our jealousy?
... The new constitution in its present form is calculated to
produce despotism, thraldom and confusion, and if the united States do swallow
it, they will find it a bolus, that will create convulsions to their utmost
extremities. Were they mine enemies, the worst imprecation I could devise would
be, may they adopt it. For tyranny, where it has been chained (as for a few
years past) is always more cursed, and sticks its teeth in deeper than before.
Were Col. [George] Mason's objections obviated, the improvement would be very
considerable, though even then, not so complete as might be. The Congress's
having power without control-to borrow money on the credit of the united States;
their having power to appoint their own salaries, and their being paid out of
the treasury of the united States, thereby, in some measure, rendering them
independent of the individual states; their being judges of the qualification
and election of their own members, by which means they can get men to suit any
purpose; together with Col. Mason's wise and judicious objections-are
grievances, the very idea of which is enough to make every honest citizen
exclaim in the language of Cato, 0 Liberty, 0 my country! Our present
constitution, with a few additional powers to Congress, seems better calculated
to preserve the rights and defend the liberties of our citizens, than the one
proposed, without proper amendments. Let us therefore, for once, show our
judgment and solidity by continuing it, and prove the opinion to be erroneous,
that levity and fickleness are not only the foibles of our tempers, but the
reigning principles in these states. There are men amongst us, of such
dissatisfied tempers, that place them in Heaven, they would find something to
blame; and so restless and self- sufficient, that they must be eternally
reforming the state. But the misfortune is, they always leave affairs worse than
they find them. A change of government is at all times dangerous, but at present
may be fatal, without the utmost caution, just after emerging out of a tedious
and expensive war. Feeble in our nature, and complicated in our form, we are
little able to bear the rough Posting of civil dissensions which are likely to
ensue. Even now, discontent and opposition distract our councils. Division and
despondency affect our people. Is it then a time to alter our government, that
government which even now totters on its foundation, and will, without tender
care, produce ruin by its fall?
Beware my countrymen! Our enemies - - uncontrolled as they are
in their ambitious schemes, fretted with losses, and perplexed with
disappointments-will exert their whole power and policy to increase and continue
our confusion. And while we are destroying one another, they will be repairing
their losses, and ruining our trade.
Of all the plagues that infest a nation, a civil war is the
worst. Famine is severe, pestilence is dreadful; but in these, though men die,
they die in peace. The father expires without the guilt of the son; and the son,
if he survives, enjoys the inheritance of his father. Cities may be thinned, but
they neither plundered nor burnt. But when a civil war is kindled, there is then
forth no security of property nor protection from any law. Life and fortune
become precarious. And all that is dear to men is at the discretion of
profligate soldiery, doubly licentious on such an occasion. Cities are exhausted
by heavy contributions, or sacked because they cannot answer exorbitant demand.
Countries are eaten up by the parties they favor, and ravaged by
the one they oppose. Fathers and sons, sheath their swords in anothers bowels in
the field, and their wives and daughters are exposed to rudeness and lust of
ruffians at home. And when the sword has decided quarrel, the scene is closed
with banishments, forfeitures, and barbarous executions that entail distress on
children then unborn. May Heaven avert the dreadful catastrophe! In the most
limited governments, what wranglings, animosities, factions, partiality, and all
other evils that tend to embroil a nation and weaken a state, are constantly
practised by legislators. What then may we expect if the new constitution be
adopted as it now stands? The great will struggle for power, honor and wealth;
the poor become a prey to avarice, insolence and oppression. And while some are
studying to supplant their neighbors, and others striving to keep their
stations, one villain will wink at the oppression of another, the people be
fleeced, and the public business neglected. From despotism and tyranny good Lord
deliver us. "
Anti-federalist No.
8
"THE POWER VESTED IN CONGRESS OF SENDING
TROOPS FOR SUPPRESSING INSURRECTIONS WILL ALWAYS ENABLE THEM TO STIFLE THE FIRST
STRUGGLES OF FREEDOM"
"A FEDERAL REPUBLICAN" (from Virginia) had his `letter to the
editor' appeared in The Norfolk and Portsmouth Register March 5, 1788.
".... By the Articles of Confederation, the congress of the
united States was vested with powers for conducting the common concerns of the
continent. They had the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on
peace and war; of sending and receiving ambassadors; of entering into treaties
and alliances; and of pointing out the respective quotas of men and men which
each state should furnish. But it was expressly provided that the money to be
supplied by each state should be raised by the authority and direction of the
legislature thereof-- thus reserving to the states the important privilege of
levying taxes upon their citizens in such manner as might be most conformable to
their peculiar circumstances and form of government. With powers thus
constituted was congress enabled to unite the general exertions of the continent
in the cause of liberty and to carry us triumphantly through a long and bloody
war. It was not until sometime after peace and a glorious independence had been
established that defects were discovered in that system of federal government
which had procured to us those blessings. It was then perceived that the
Articles of Confederation were inadequate to the purposes of the union; and it
was particularly suggested as necessary to vest in congress the further power of
exclusively regulating the commerce of the United States, as well to enable us,
by a system more uniform, to counteract the policy of foreign nations, as for
other important reasons. Upon this principle, a general convention of the United
States was proposed to be held, and deputies were accordingly appointed by
twelve of the states charged with power to revise, alter, and amend the Articles
of Confederation. When these deputies met, instead of confining themselves to
the powers with which they were entrusted, they pronounced all amendments to the
Articles of Confederation wholly impracticable; and with a spirit of amity and
concession truly remarkable proceeded to form a government entirely new, and
totally different in its principles and its organization. Instead of a congress
whose members could serve but three years out of six-and then to return to a
level with their fellow citizens; and who were liable at all times, whenever the
states might deem it necessary, to be recalled-- Congress, by this new
constitution, will be composed of a body whose members during the time they are
appointed to serve, can receive no check from their constituents. Instead of the
powers formerly granted to congress of ascertaining each state's quota of men
and money-to be raised by the legislatures of the different states in such a
mode as they might think proper- -congress, by this new government, will be
invested with the formidable powers of raising armies, and lending money,
totally independent of the different states. They will moreover, have the power
of leading troops among you in order to suppress those struggles which may
sometimes happen among a free people, and which tyranny will impiously brand
with the name of sedition. On one day the state collector will call on you for
your proportion of those taxes which have been laid on you by the general
assembly, where you are fully and adequately represented; on the next will come
the Continental collector to demand from you those taxes which shall be levied
by the continental congress, where the whole state of Virginia will be
represented by only ten men! Thus shall we imprudently confer on so small a
number the very important power of taking our money out of our pockets, and of
levying taxes without control-a right which the wisdom of our state constitution
will, in vain, have confided to the most numerous branch of the legislature.
Should the sheriff or state collector in any manner aggrieve you either in
person or property, these sacred rights are amply secured by the most solemn
compact. Beside, the arm of government is always at hand to shield you from his
injustice and oppression. But if a Continental collector, in the execution of
his office, should invade your freedom (according to this new government, which
has expressly declared itself paramount to all state laws and constitutions) the
state of which you are a citizen will have no authority to afford you relief. A
continental court may, indeed, be established in the state, and it may be urged
that you will find a remedy here; but, my fellow citizens, let me ask, what
protection this will afford you against the insults or rapacity of a continental
officer, when he will have it in his power to appeal to the seat of congress
perhaps at several hundred miles distance, and by this means oblige you to
expend hundreds of pounds in obtaining redress for twenty shillings unjustly
extorted? Thus will you be necessarily compelled either to make a bold effort to
extricate yourselves from these grievous and oppressive extortions, or you will
be fatigued by fruitless attempts into the quiet and peaceable surrender of
those rights, for which the blood of your fellow citizens has been shed in vain.
But the latter will, no doubt, be the melancholy fate of a people once inspired
with the love of liberty, as the power vested in congress of sending troops for
suppressing insurrections will always enable them to stifle the first struggles
of freedom. "
A FEDERAL REPUBLICAN
Anti-federalist No. 9
A CONSOLIDATED
GOVERNMENT IS A TYRANNY
"MONTEZUMA," regarded as a Pennsylvanian, wrote this essay which
showed up in the Independent Gazetteer on October 17, 1787.
"We the Aristocratic party of the united States, lamenting the
many inconveniences to which the late confederation subjected the well-born, the
better kind of people, bringing them down to the level of the rabble-and holding
in utter detestation that frontispiece to every bill of rights, "that all men
are born equal"-beg leave (for the purpose of drawing a line between such as we
think were ordained to govern, and such as were made to bear the weight of
government without having any share in its administration) to submit to our
Friends in the first class for their inspection, the following defense of our
monarchical, aristocratical democracy.
lst. As a majority of all societies consist of men who (though
totally incapable of thinking or acting in governmental matters) are more
readily led than driven, we have thought meet to indulge them in something like
a democracy in the new constitution, which part we have designated by the
popular name of the House of Representatives. But to guard against every
possible danger from this lower house, we have subjected every bill they bring
forward, to the double negative of our upper house and president. Nor have we
allowed the populace the right to elect their representatives annually . . .
lest this body should be too much under the influence and control of their
constituents, and thereby prove the "weatherboard of our grand edifice, to show
the shiftings of every fashionable gale,"-for we have not yet to learn that
little else is wanting to aristocratize the most democratical representative
than to make him somewhat independent of his political creators. We have taken
away that rotation of appointment which has so long perplexed us-that grand
engine of popular influence. Every man is eligible into our government from time
to time for life. This will have a two-fold good effect. First, it prevents the
representatives from mixing with the lower class, and imbibing their foolish
sentiments, with which they would have come charged on re-election.
2d. They will from the perpetuality of office be under our eye,
and in a short time will think and act like us, independently of popular whims
and prejudices. For the assertion "that evil communications corrupt good
manners," is not more true than its reverse. We have allowed this house the
power to impeach, but we have tenaciously reserved the right to try. We hope
gentlemen, you will see the policy of this clause-for what matters it who
accuses, if the accused is tried by his friends. In fine, this plebian house
will have little power, and that little be rightly shaped by our house of
gentlemen, who will have a very extensive influence-from their being chosen out
of the genteeler class ... It is true, every third senatorial seat is to be
vacated duennually, but two-thirds of this influential body will remain in
office, and be ready to direct or (if necessary) bring over to the good old way,
the young members, if the old ones should not be returned. And whereas many of
our brethren, from a laudable desire to support their rank in life above the
commonalty, have not only deranged their finances, but subjected their persons
to indecent treatment (as being arrested for debt, etc.) we have framed a
privilege clause, by which they may laugh at the fools who trusted them. But we
have given out, that this clause was provided, only that the members might be
able without interruption, to deliberate on the important business of their
country.
We have frequently endeavored to effect in our respective
states, the happy discrimination which pervades this system; but finding we
could not bring the states into it individually, we have determined ... and have
taken pains to leave the legislature of each free and independent state, as they
now call themselves, in such a situation that they will eventually be absorbed
by our grand continental vortex, or dwindle into petty corporations, and have
power over little else than yoaking hogs or determining the width of cart
wheels. But (aware that an intention to annihilate state legislatures, would be
objected to our favorite scheme) we have made their existence (as a board of
electors) necessary to ours. This furnishes us and our advocates with a fine
answer to any clamors that may be raised on this subject. We have so interwoven
continental and state legislatures that they cannot exist separately; whereas we
in truth only leave them the power of electing us, for what can a provincial
legislature do when we possess the exclusive regulation of external and internal
commerce, excise, duties, imposts, post-offices and roads; when we and we alone,
have the power to wage war, make peace, coin money (if we can get bullion) if
not, borrow money, organize the militia and call them forth to execute our
decrees, and crush insurrections assisted by a noble body of veterans subject to
our nod, which we have the power of raising and keeping even in the time of
peace. What have we to fear from state legislatures or even from states, when we
are armed with such powers, with a president at our head? (A name we thought
proper to adopt in conformity to the prejudices of a silly people who are so
foolishly fond of a Republican government, that we were obliged to accommodate
in names and forms to them, in order more effectually to secure the substance of
our proposed plan; but we all know that Cromwell was a King, with the title of
Protector). I repeat it, what have we to fear armed with such powers, with a
president at our head who is captain- -general of the army, navy and militia of
the United States, who can make and unmake treaties, appoint and commission
ambassadors and other ministers, who can grant or refuse reprieves or pardons,
who can make judges of the supreme and other continental courts-in short, who
will be the source, the fountain of honor, profit and power, whose influence
like the rays of the sun, will diffuse itself far and wide, will exhale all
democratical vapors and break the clouds of popular insurrection? But again
gentlemen, our judicial power is a strong work, a masked battery, few people see
the guns we can and will ere long play off from it. For the judicial power
embraces every question which can arise in law or equity, under this
constitution and under the laws of "the United States" (which laws will be, you
know, the supreme laws of the land). This power extends to all cases, affecting
ambassadors or other public ministers, "and consuls; to all cases of admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the united States shall be
a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and
citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between
citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States; and
between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or
subjects."
Now, can a question arise in the colonial courts, which the
ingenuity or sophistry of an able lawyer may not bring within one or other of
the above cases? Certainly not. Then our court will have original or appellate
jurisdiction in all cases-and if so, how fallen are state judicatures-and must
not every provincial law yield to our supreme flat? Our constitution answers
yes. . . . And finally we shall entrench ourselves so as to laugh at the cabals
of the commonalty. A few regiments will do at first; it must be spread abroad
that they are absolutely necessary to defend the frontiers. Now a regiment and
then a legion must be added quietly; by and by a frigate or two must be built,
still taking care to intimate that they are essential to the support of our
revenue laws and to prevent smuggling. We have said nothing about a bill of
rights, for we viewed it as an eternal clog upon our designs, as a lock chain to
the wheels of government-though, by the way, as we have not insisted on rotation
in our offices, the simile of a wheel is ill. We have for some time considered
the freedom of the press as a great evil-it spreads information, and begets a
licentiousness in the people which needs the rein more than the spur; besides, a
daring printer may expose the plans of government and lessen the consequence of
our president and senate-for these and many other reasons we have said nothing
with respect to the "right of the people to speak and publish their sentiments"
or about their "palladiums of liberty" and such stuff. We do not much like that
sturdy privilege of the people-the right to demand the writ of habeas corpus. We
have therefore reserved the power of refusing it in cases of rebellion, and you
know we are the judges of what is rebellion.... Our friends we find have been
assiduous in representing our federal calamities, until at length the people at
large-frightened by the gloomy picture on one side, and allured by the
prophecies of some of our fanciful and visionary adherents on the other-are
ready to accept and confirm our proposed government without the delay or forms
of examination--which was the more to be wished, as they are wholly unfit to
investigate the principles or pronounce on the merit of so exquisite a
system.
Impressed with a conviction that this constitution is calculated
to restrain the influence and power of the LOWER CLASS-to draw that
discrimination we have so long sought after; to secure to our friends privileges
and offices, which were not to be ... [obtained] under the former government,
because they were in common; to take the burden of legislation and attendance on
public business off the commonalty, who will be much better able thereby to
prosecute with effect their private business; to destroy that political thirteen
headed monster, the state sovereignties; to check the licentiousness of the
people by making it dangerous to speak or publish daring or tumultuary
sentiments; to enforce obedience to laws by a strong executive, aided by
military pensioners; and finally to promote the public and private interests of
the better kind of people-we submit it to your judgment to take such measures
for its adoption as you in your wisdom may think fit. "
Signed by unanimous order of the lords spiritual and temporal."
MONTEZUMA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anti-federalist No.
10
ON THE
PRESERVATION OF PARTIES, PUBLIC LIBERTY
DEPENDS
This essay follows a theme similar to Federalist No. 10,and
appeared in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser,
March 18,
1788.
The opposite qualities of the first confederation were
rather caused by than the cause of two parties, which from its first
existence began and have continued their operations, I believe, unknown to
their country and almost unknown to themselves-as really but few men have
the capacity or resolution to develop the secret causes which influence
their daily conduct. The old Congress was a national government and an union
of States, both brought into one political body, as these opposite powers-I
do not mean parties were so exactly blended and very nearly balanced, like
every artificial, operative machine where action is equal to reaction. It
stood perfectly still. It would not move at all. Those who were merely
confederal in their views, were for dividing the public debt. Those who were
for national government, were for increasing of it. Those who thought any
national government would be destructive to the liberties of America . . .
assisted those who thought it our only safety-to put everything as wrong as
possible. Requisitions were made, which every body knew it was impossible to
comply with.
Either in 82 or 83, ten millions of hard dollars, if not
thirteen, were called into the continental treasury, when there could not be
half that sum in the whole tract of territory between Nova-Scotia and
Florida.
The States neglected them in despair. The public honor was
tarnished, and our governments abused by their servants and best friends. In
fine, it became a cant word things are not yet bad enough to mend. However,
as [a] great part of the important objects of society were entrusted to this
mongrel species of general government, the sentiment of pushing it forward
became general throughout America, and the late Convention met at
Philadelphia under the uniform impression, that such was the desire of their
constituents. But even then the advantages and disadvantages of national
government operated so strongly, although silently, on each individual, that
the conflict was nearly equal. A third or middle opinion, which always
arises in such cases, broke off and took the lead-the national party [thus]
assisted, pursued steadily their object- the federal party dropped off, one
by one, and finally, when the middle party came to view the offspring which
they had given birth to, and in a great measure reared, several of them
immediately disowned the child. Such has been hitherto the progress of
party; or rather of the human mind dispassionately contemplating our
separate and relative situation, and aiming at that perfect completion of
social happiness and grandeur, which perhaps can be combined only in ideas.
Every description of men entertain the same wishes (excepting perhaps a
few very bad men of each)-they forever will differ about the mode of
accomplishment-and some must be permitted to doubt the
practicability.
As our citizens are now apprized of the progress of parties
or political opinions on the continent, it is fit they should also be
informed of the present state, force and designs of each, in order that they
may form their decisions with safety to the public and themselves-this shall
be given with all the precision and impartiality the author is capable
of.
America is at present divided into three classes or
descriptions of men, and in a few years there will be but two.
[First]. The first class comprehends all those men of
fortune and reputation who stepped forward in the late revolution, from
opposition to the administration, rather than the government of Great
Britain. All those aristocrats whose pride disdains equal law. Many men of
very large fortune, who entertain real or imaginary fears for the security
of property. Those young men, who have sacrificed their time and their
talents to public service, without any prospect of an adequate pecuniary or
honorary reward. All your people of fashion and pleasure who are corrupted
by the dissipation of the French, English and American armies; and a love of
European manners and luxury. The public creditors of the continent, whose
interest has been heretofore sacrificed by their friends, in order to retain
their services on this occasion. A large majority of the mercantile people,
which is at present a very unformed and consequently dangerous interest. Our
old native merchants have been almost universally ruined by the receipt of
their debts in paper during the war, and the payment in hard money of what
they owed their British correspondents since peace. Those who are not
bankrupts, have generally retired and given place to a set of young men, who
conducting themselves as rashly as ignorantly, have embarrassed their
affairs and lay the blame on the government, and who are really unacquainted
with the true mercantile interest of the country-which is perplexed from
circumstances rather temporary than permanent. The foreign merchants are
generally not to be trusted with influence in our government-- they are most
of them birds of passage. Some, perhaps British emissaries increasing and
rejoicing in our political mistakes, and even those who have settled among
us with an intention to fix themselves and their posterity in our soil, have
brought with them more foreign prejudices than wealth. Time must elapse
before the mercantile interest will be so organized as to govern themselves,
much less others, with propriety. And lastly, to this class I suppose we may
ultimately add the tory interest, with the exception of very many
respectable characters, who reflect with a gratification mixed with disdain,
that those principles are now become fashionable for which they have been
persecuted and hunted down-which, although by no means so formidable as is
generally imagined, is still considerable.
They are at present wavering.
They are generally, though with very many exceptions, openly for the
proposed, but secretly against any American government. A burnt child dreads
the fire. But should they see any fair prospect of confusion arise, these
gentry will be off at any moment for these five and twenty years to come.
Ultimately, should the administration promise stability to the new
government, they may be counted on as the Janizaries of power, ready to
efface all suspicion by the violence of their zeal.
In general, all these various people would prefer a
government, as nearly copied after that of Great Britain, as our
circumstances will permit. Some would strain these circumstances. Others
still retain a deep rooted jealousy of the executive branch and strong
republican prejudices as they are called. Finally, this class contains more
aggregate wisdom and moral virtue than both the other two together. It
commands nearly two thirds of the property and almost one half the numbers
of America, and has at present, become almost irresistible from the name of
the truly great and amiable man who it has been said, is disposed to
patronize it, and from the influence which it has over the second class.
This [first] class is nearly at the height of their power; they must decline
or moderate, or another revolution will ensue, for the opinion of America is
becoming daily more unfavorable to those radical changes which high-toned
government requires. A conflict would terminate in the destruction of this
class, or the liberties of their country.
May the Guardian Angel of
America prevent both!
[Second]. The second class is composed of those descriptions
of men who are certainly more numerous with us than in any other part of the
globe. First, those men who are so wise as to discover that their ancestors
and indeed all the rest of mankind were and are fools. We have a vast
overproportion of these great men, who, when you tell them that from the
earliest period at which mankind devoted their attention to social
happiness, it has been their uniform judgment, that a government over
governments cannot exist- that is two governments operating on the same
individual-assume the smile of confidence, and tell you of two people
travelling the same road-of a perfect and precise division of the duties of
the individual. Still, however, the political apothegm is as old as the
proverb-That no man can serve two masters-and whoever will run their noddles
against old proverbs will be sure to break them, however hard they may be.
And if they broke only their own, all would be right; but it is very
horrible to reflect that all our numskulls must be cracked in concert.
Second. The trimmers, who from sympathetic indecision are always united
with, and when not regularly employed, always fight under the banners of
these great men, These people are forever at market, and when parties are
nearly equally divided, they get very well paid for their services. Thirdly.
The indolent, that is almost every second man of independent fortune you
meet with in America-these are quite easy, and can live under any
government. If men can be said to live, who scarcely breathe; and if
breathing was attended with any bodily exertion, would give up their small
portion of life in despair. These men do not swim with the stream as the
trimmers do, but are dragged like mud at the bottom. As they have no other
weight than their tat flesh, they are hardly worth mentioning when we speak
of the sentiments and opinions of America.
As this second class never
can include any of the yeomanry of the union, who never affect superior
wisdom, and can have no interests but the public good, it can be only said
to exist at the birth of government, and as soon as the first and third
classes become more decided in their views, this will divide with each and
dissipate like a mist, or sink down into what are called moderate men, and
become the tools and instruments of others. These people are prevented by a
cloud from having any view; and if they are not virtuous, they at least
preserve the appearance, which in this world amounts to the same
thing.
[Third]. At the head of the third class appear the old rigid
republicans, who although few in number, are still formidable. Reverence
will follow these men in spite of detraction, as long as wisdom and virtue
are esteemed among mankind. They are joined by the true democrats, who are
in general fanatics and enthusiasts, and some few sensible, charming madmen.
A decided majority of the yeomanry of America will, for a length of years,
be ready to support these two descriptions of men. But as this last class is
forced to act as a residuary legatee, and receive all the trash and filth,
it is in some measure disgraced and its influence weakened. 3dly. The
freebooters and plunderers, who infest all countries and ours perhaps as
little as any other whatever. These men have that natural antipathy to any
kind or sort of government, that a rogue has to a halter.
In number they
are few indeed such characters are the offspring of dissipation and want,
and there is not that country in the world where so much real property is
shared so equally among so few citizens, for where property is as easily
acquired by fair means, very few indeed will resort to foul. Lastly, by the
poor mob, infoelix pecus!l The property of whoever will feed them and take
care of them-let them be spared. Let the burden of taxation sit lightly on
their shoulders. But alas! This is not their fate. It is here that
government forever falls with all its weight. It is here that the proposed
government will press where it should scarcely be felt. . . .
In this [third] class may be counted men of the greatest
mental powers and of as sublime virtue as any in America.
They at
present command nearly one-third of the property and above half the numbers
of the United States, and in either event they must continue to increase in
influence by great desertions from both the other classes. . . . If the
[proposed] government is not adopted, theirs will be the prevalent opinion.
The object of this class either is or will be purely federal-an union of
independent States, not a government of individuals.
And should the
proposed federal plan fail, from the obstinacy of those who will listen to
no conditional amendments, although such as they cannot disapprove; or
should it ultimately in its execution upon a fair trial, disappoint the
wishes and expectations of our country-[then] an union purely federal is
what the reasonable and dispassionate patriots of America must bend their
views to. My countrymen, preserve your jealousy-reject suspicion, it is the
fiend that destroys public and private happiness. I know some weak, but very
few if any wicked men in public confidence. And learn this most difficult
and necessary lesson: That on the preservation of parties, public liberty
depends. Whenever men are unanimous on great public questions, whenever
there is but one party, freedom ceases and despotism commences. The object
of a free and wise people should be so to balance parties, that from the
weakness of all you may be governed by the moderation of the combined
judgments of the whole, not tyrannized over by the blind passions of a few
individuals.
A FARMER
Anti-federalist No. 11
UNRESTRICTED POWER
OVER COMMERCE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
Scholars regard James Winthrop of Cambridge, Mass. to be the
"Agrippa" who contributed the series to The Massachusetts Gazette from
November 23, 1787 to February 5, 1788. This is a compilation of excerpts
from "Agrippa's" letters of December 14, 18, 25, and 28, 1787, taken from
Ford, Essays, pp. 70-73, 76-77, 79-81.
It has been proved, by indisputable evidence, that power is
not the grand principle of union among the parts of a very extensive empire;
and that when this principle is pushed beyond the degree necessary for
rendering justice between man and man, it debases the character of
individuals, and renders them less secure in their persons and property.
Civil liberty consists in the consciousness of that security, and is best
guarded by political liberty, which is the share that every citizen has in
the government. Accordingly all our accounts agree, that in those empires
which are commonly called despotic, and which comprehend by far the greatest
part of the world, the government is most fluctuating, and property least
secure. In those countries insults are borne by the sovereign, which, if
offered to one of our governors, would fill us with horror, and we should
think the government dissolving.
The common conclusion from this reasoning is an exceedingly
unfair one, that we must then separate, and form distinct confederacies.
This would be true if there was no principle to substitute in the room of
power. Fortunately there is one. This is commerce. All the states have local
advantages, and in a considerable degree separate interests. They are,
therefore, in a situation to supply each other's wants. Carolina, for
instance, is inhabited by planters, while Massachusetts is more engaged in
commerce and manufactures. Congress has the power of deciding their
differences. The most friendly intercourse may therefore be established
between them. A diversity of produce, wants and interests, produces
commerce; and commerce, where there is a common, equal and moderate
authority to preside, produces friendship.
The same principles apply to the connection with the new
settlers in the west. Many supplies they want, for which they must look to
the older settlements, and the greatness of their crops enables them to make
payments. Here, then, we have a bond of -union which applies to all parts of
the empire, and would continue to operate if the empire comprehended all
America.
We are now, in the strictest sense of the terms, a federal
republic. Each part has within its own limits the sovereignty over its
citizens, while some of the general concerns are committed to Congress. The
complaints of the deficiency of the Congressional powers are confined to two
articles. They are not able to raise a revenue by taxation, and they have
not a complete regulation of the intercourse between us and foreigners. For
each of these complaints there is some foundation, but not enough to justify
the clamor which has been raised. . . .
The second article of complaint against the present
confederation . . . is that Congress has not the sole power to regulate the
intercourse between us and foreigners. Such a power extends not only to war
and peace, but to trade and naturalization. This last article ought never to
be given them; for though most of the states may be willing for certain
reasons to receive foreigners as citizens, yet reasons of equal weight may
induce other states, differently circumstanced, to keep their blood pure.
Pennsylvania has chosen to receive all that would come there. Let any
indifferent person judge whether that state in point of morals, education,
[or] energy, is equal to any of the eastern states; the small state of Rhode
Island only excepted. Pennsylvania in the course of a century has acquired
her present extent and population at the expense of religion and good
morals. The eastern states have, by keeping separate from the foreign
mixtures, acquired their present greatness in the course of a century and an
half, and have preserved their religion and morals. They have also preserved
that manly virtue which is equally fitted for rendering them respectable in
war, and industrious in peace.
The remaining power for peace and trade might perhaps be
safely lodged with Congress under some limitations. Three restrictions
appear to me to be essentially necessary to preserve that equality of rights
to the states, which it is the object of the state governments to secure to
each citizen. 1st. It ought not to be in the power of Congress, either by
treaty or otherwise, to alienate part of any state without the consent of
the legislature.
2nd. They ought not to be able, by treaty or other law, to
give any legal preference to one part above another.
3rd. They ought to be
restrained from creating any monopolies....
The idea of consolidation is further kept up in the right
given to regulate trade. Though this power under certain limitations would
be a proper one for the department of Congress, it is in this system carried
much too far, and much farther than is necessary. This is, without
exception, the most commercial state upon the continent. Our extensive
coasts, cold climate, small estates, and equality of rights, with a variety
of subordinate and concurring circumstances, place us in this respect at the
head of the Union. We must, therefore, be indulged if a point which so
nearly relates to our welfare be rigidly examined. The new constitution not
only prohibits vessels, bound from one state to another, from paying any
duties, but even from entering and clearing. The only use of such a
regulation is, to keep each state in complete ignorance of its own
resources. It certainly is no hardship to enter and clear at the custom
house, and the expense is too small to be an object.
The unlimited right to regulate trade, includes the right of
granting exclusive charters. This, in all old countries, is considered as
one principal branch of prerogative. We find hardly a country in Europe
which has not felt the ill effects of such a power. Holland has carried the
exercise of it farther than any other state, and the reason why that country
has felt less evil from it is, that the territory is very small, and they
have drawn large revenues from their colonies in the East and West Indies.
In this respect, the whole country is to be considered as a trading company,
having exclusive privileges. The colonies are large in proportion to the
parent state; so that, upon the whole, the latter may gain by such a system.
We are also to take into consideration the industry which the genius of a
free government inspires. But in the British islands all these circumstances
together have not prevented them from being injured by the monopolies
created there. Individuals have been enriched, but the country at large has
been hurt. Some valuable branches of trade being granted to companies, who
transact their business in London, that city is, perhaps, the place of the
greatest trade in the world. But Ireland, under such influence, suffers
exceedingly, and is impoverished; and Scotland is a mere by-word. Bristol,
the second city in England, ranks not much above this town [Boston] in
population. These things must be accounted for by the incorporation of
trading companies; and if they are felt so severely in countries of small
extent, they will operate with tenfold severity upon us, who inhabit an
immense tract; and living towards one extreme of an extensive empire, shall
feel the evil, without retaining that influence in government, which may
enable us to procure redress. There ought, then, to have been inserted a
restraining clause which might prevent the Congress from making any such
grant, because they consequentially defeat the trade of the out-ports, and
are also injurious to the general commerce, by enhancing prices and
destroying that rivalship which is the great stimulus to industry. . . .
There cannot be a doubt, that, while the trade of this
continent remains free, the activity of our countrymen will secure their
full share. AR the estimates for the present year, let them be made by what
party they may, suppose the balance of trade to be largely in our favor. The
credit of our merchants is, therefore, fully established in foreign
countries. This is a sufficient proof, that when business is unshackled, it
will find out that channel which is most friendly to its course. We ought,
therefore, to be exceedingly cautious about diverting or restraining it.
Every day produces fresh proofs, that people, under the immediate pressure
of difficulties, do not, at first glance, discover the proper relief. The
last year, a desire to get rid of embarrassments induced many honest people
to agree to a tender act, and many others, of a different description, to
obstruct the courts of justice. Both these methods only increased the evil
they were intended to cure. Experience has since shown that, instead of
trying to lesson an evil by altering the present course of things, that
every endeavor should have been applied to facilitate the course of law, and
thus to encourage a mutual confidence among the citizens, which increases
the resources of them all, and renders easy the payment of debts. By this
means one does not grow rich at the expense of another, but all are
benefited. The case is the same with the States. Pennsylvania, with one port
and a large territory, is less favorably situated for trade than
Massachusetts, which has an extensive coast in proportion to its limits of
jurisdiction. Accordingly a much larger proportion of our people are engaged
in maritime affairs. We ought therefore to be particularly attentive to
securing so great an interest. It is vain to tell us that we ought to
overlook local interests. It is only by protecting local concerns that the
interest of the whole is preserved. No man when he enters into society does
it from a view to promote the good of others, but he does it for his own
good. All men having the same view are bound equally to promote the welfare
of the whole. To recur then to such a principle as that local interests must
be disregarded, is requiring of one man to do more than another, and is
subverting the foundation of a free government. The Philadelphians would be
shocked with a proposition to place the seat of general government and the
unlimited right to regulate trade in Massachusetts. There can be no greater
reason for our surrendering the preference to them. Such sacrifices, however
we may delude ourselves with the form of words, always originate in folly,
and not in generosity.
AGRIPPA
Anti-federalist No. 12
HOW WILL
THE NEW GOVERNMENT RAISE MONEY?
"CINCINNATUS" is an Antifederalist writer. In this essay,
from an Address to a Meeting of the Citizens of Philadelphia, the writer
responds to James Wilson's statements about Congress' powers to tax under
the Constitution. It appeared in the November 29 and December 6, 1787,
New-York Journal, as reprinted from a Philadelphia newspaper.
On the subject of taxation, in which powers are to be given
so largely by the new constitution, you [James Wilson of Pennsylvania] lull
our fears of abuse by venturing to predict "that the great revenue of the
United States must, and always will, be raised by impost"-and you elevate
our hopes by holding out, "the reviving and supporting the national credit."
If you have any other plan for this, than by raising money upon the people
to pay the interest of the national debt, your ingenuity will deserve our
thanks. Supposing however, that raising money is necessary to payment of the
interest, and such a payment [is] requisite to support the credit of the
union-let us see how much will be necessary for that end, and how far the
impost will supply what we want. The arrearages of French and Spanish
interest amount now to--1,500,000 dollars; Interest and installments of do.
for 1788--850,227; Support of government; and its departments, for
1788--500,000; Arrears and anticipations of 1787-- 300,000; Interest of
domestic debt-- 500,000 {total} 4,650,227 [3,650,227]
The new Congress then, supposing it to get into operation
towards October, 1788, will have to provide for this sum, and for the
additional sum of 3,000,000 at least for the ensuing year; which together
will make the sum of 7,650,227 [6,650,227].
Now let us see how the impost will answer this. Congress
have furnished us with their estimate of the produce of the whole imports of
America at five per cent and that is 800,000 dollars. There will remain to
provide for, by other taxes, 6,850,227 [5,850,227].
We know too, that our imports diminish yearly, and from the
nature of things must continue to diminish; and consequently that the above
estimate of the produce of the impost, will in all probability fall much
short of the supposed sum. But even without this, it must appear that you
[were] either intentionally misleading your hearers, or [were] very little
acquainted with the subject when you ventured to predict that the great
revenue of the United States would always flow from the impost. The estimate
above is from the publications of Congress, and I presume is right. But the
sum stated, necessary to be raised by the new government, in order to answer
the expectations they have raised, is not all. The state debts, independent
of what each owes to the united States, amount to about 30,000,000 dollars;
the annual interest of this is 1,000,000.
It will be expected that the new government will provide for
this also; and such expectation is founded, not only on the promise you hold
forth, of its reviving and supporting public credit among us, but also on
this unavoidable principle of justice-that is, the new government takes away
the impost, and other substantial taxes, from the produce of which the
several states paid the interest of their debt, or funded the paper with
which they paid it. The new government must find ways and means of supplying
that deficiency, . . . in hard money, for . . . paper . . . cannot [be used]
without a violation of the principles it boasts. The sum then which it must
annually raise in specie, after the first year, cannot be less than
4,800,000. At present there is not one half of this sum in specie raised in
all the states. And yet the complaints of intolerable taxes has produced one
rebellion and will be mainly operative in the adoption of your constitution.
How you will get this sum is inconceivable and yet get it you must, or lose
all credit. With magnificent promises you have bought golden opinions of all
sorts of people, and with gold you must answer them, . . .
To satisfy [our fellow citizens] more fully on the subject
of the revenue, that is to be raised upon them, in order to give enormous
fortunes to the jobbers in public securities, I shall lay before them a
proposition to Congress, from Mr. Robert Morris, when superintendent of
finance. It is dated, I think,' the 29th of June, 1782, and is in these
words:
[I say, I think, because by accident the month is erased in
the note I have, and I have not access to public papers which would enable
me to supply the defect.]
"The requisition of a five per cent impost, made on the 3d
of February, 1781, has not yet been complied with by the state of Rhode
Island, but as there is reason to believe, that their compliance is not far
off, this revenue may be considered as already granted. It will, however, be
very inadequate to the purposes intended. If goods be imported, and prizes
introduced to the amount of twelve millions annually, the five per cent
would be six hundred thousand, from which at least one sixth must be
deducted, as well for the cost of collection as for the various defalcations
which will necessarily happen, and which it is unnecessary to enumerate. It
is not safe therefore, to estimate this revenue at more than half a million
of dollars; for though it may produce more, yet probably it will not produce
so much. It was in consequence of this, that on the 27th day of February
last, I took the liberty to submit the propriety of asking the states for a
land tax of one dollar for every hundred acres of land-a poll-tax of one
dollar on all freemen, and all male slaves, between sixteen and sixty,
excepting such as are in the federal army, or by wounds or otherwise
rendered unfit for service-and an excise of one eighth of a dollar, on all
distilled spiritous liquors. Each of these may be estimated at half a
million; and should the product be equal to the estimation, the sum total of
revenues for funding the public debts, would be equal to two millions."
You will readily perceive, Mr. Wilson, that there is a vast
difference between your prediction and your friend's proposition. Give me
leave to say, sir, that it was not discreet, in you, to speak upon finance
without instructions from this great financier. Since, independent of its
delusive effect upon your audience, it may excite his jealousy, lest you
should have a secret design of rivalling him in the expected office of
superintendent under the new constitution. It is true, there is no real
foundation for it; but then you know jealousy makes the food it feeds on. A
quarrel between two such able and honest friends to the united States,
would, I am persuaded, be felt as a public calamity. I beseech you then to
be very tender upon this point in your next harangue. And if four months'
study will not furnish you with sufficient discretion, we will indulge you
with six.
It may be said, that let the government be what it may, the
sums I have stated must be raised, and the same difficulties exist. This is
not altogether true. For first, we are now in the way of paying the interest
of the domestic debt, with paper, which under the new system is utterly
reprobated. This makes a difference between the specie to be raised of
1,800,000 dollars per annum. If the new government raises this sum in specie
on the people, it will certainly support public credit, but it will
overwhelm the people. It will give immense fortunes to the speculators; but
it will grind the poor to dust. Besides, the present government is now
redeeming the principal of the domestic debt by the sale of western lands.
But let the full interest be paid in specie, and who will part with the
principal for those lands? A principal, which having been generally
purchased for two shillings and six pence on the pound, will yield to the
holders two hundred and forty per cent. This paper system therefore, though
in general an evil, is in this instance attended with the great benefit of
enabling the public to cancel a debt upon easy terms, which has been swelled
to its enormous size, by as enormous impositions. And the new government, by
promising too much, will involve itself in a disreputable breach of faith. .
. .
The present government promises nothing; the intended
government, everything. From the present government little is expected; from
the intended one, much. Because it is conceived that to the latter much is
given; to the former, little. And yet the inability of the people to pay
what is required in specie, remaining the same, the funds of the one will
not much exceed those of the other. The public creditors are easy with the
present government from a conviction of its inability [to pay]. They will be
urgent with the new one from an opinion, that as is promised, so it can and
will perform every thing. Whether the change will be for our prosperity and
honor, is yet to be tried. Perhaps it will be found, that the supposed want
of power in Congress to levy taxes is, at present a veil happily thrown over
the inability of the people; and that the large powers given to the new
government will, to every one, expose the nakedness of our land. Certain it
is, that if the expectations which are grafted on the gift of those plenary
powers, are not answered, our credit will be irretrievably ruined.
CINCINNATUS
Anti-federalist No. 13
THE EXPENSE
OF THE NEW GOVERNMENT
Part 1: From The Freeman's Oracle and New Hampshire
Advertiser, January 11, 1788, by "A FARMER"
Part 2: An unsigned essay
from The Connecticut Journal, October 17, 1787
. . . . . Great complaint has been made, that Congress
[under the Articles] has been too liberal in their grants of salaries to
individuals, and I think not without just cause. For if I am rightly
informed, there have been men whose salaries have been fifteen hundred
dollars per year, and some of them did not do business at any rate, that the
sum they negotiated would amount to their yearly salary. And some men [are]
now in office, at twenty five hundred dollars per year, who I think would
have been glad to have set down at one hundred pounds a year before the war,
and would have done as much or more business. The truth is, when you carry a
man's salary beyond what decency requires, he immediately becomes a man of
consequence, and does little or no business at all. Let us cast our eyes
around us, in the other departments-the judges of the superior court have
but about one hundred pounds salary a year. The judges of the courts of
common pleas, on an average, not more than sixty dollars per year. The
ministers of the gospel-a very valuable set of men, who have done honor to
themselves, and rendered great service to their country, in completing the
revolution-have salaries but from sixty to an hundred pounds a year in
general. The contrast is striking. I heartily wish that all ranks of men
among us, ministers of the gospel as well as others, would turn their
attention toward the Constitution they may be more concerned in the event
than they at present think of.
Rouse up, my friends, a matter of infinite importance is
before you on the carpet, soon to be decided in your convention: The New
Constitution. Seize the happy moment. Secure to yourselves and your
posterity the jewel Liberty, which has cost you so much blood and treasure,
by a well regulated Bill of Rights, from the encroachments of men in power.
For if Congress will do these things in the dry tree when their power is
small, what won't they do when they have all the resources of the United
States at their command? They are the servants of the public. You have an
undoubted right to set their wages, or at least to say, thus far you and
those under you may go and no further. This would in the end ease Congress
of a great deal of trouble, as it would put a stop to the impertinence of
individuals in asking large salaries. I would say that the wages of a
Representative in Congress do not exceed five dollars per day; a Senator not
to exceed six; and the President seven per day, with an allowance for his
table. And that the wages of no person employed in the United States exceed
the daily pay of a Representative in Congress, but be paid according to
their service, not exceeding that sum. Perhaps it may be said that money may
depreciate, or appreciate. Let a price current be taken when this
Constitution is completed, of the produce of each state, and let that be the
general standard.
My friends and countrymen, let us pause for a moment and
consider. We are not driven to such great straits as to be obliged to
swallow down every potion offered us by wholesale, or else die immediately
by our disease. We can form a Constitution at our leisure; and guard and
secure it on all sides. We are paying off our state debt, and the interest
on the domestic, as fast as Congress call upon us for it. As to the foreign
debt, they have the promise of more interest from us than they can get
anywhere else, and we shall be able to pay them both interest and principal
shortly. But it is said they win declare war against us if we don't pay them
immediately. Common sense will teach them better. We live at too great a
distance, and are too hardy and robust a people, for them to make money out
of us in that way.
But it is said, the trading towns are fond of this
Constitution. Let us consider how they stand, including their interest.
lst. The merchant wishes to have it adopted, that trade
might be regulated. 2dly. Another set of men wishes to have it adopted, that
the idea of paper money might be annihilated. 3dly. Another class of men
wish to have it take place, that the public might be enabled to pay off the
foreign debt, and appear respectable abroad among the nations. So do I, with
all my heart. But in neither of these cases do I wish to see it adopted
without being guarded on all sides with a Magna Charta, or a Bill of Rights,
as a bulwark to our liberties. Again, another class of men wish to have it
adopted, so that the public chest might be furnished with money to pay the
interest on their securities, which they purchased of the poor soldiers at
two shillings on the pound. I wish the soldiers were now the holders of
those securites they fought so hard for. However, as the public finances
were such that they could not be paid off as they became due, and they have
carried them to market, and sold them as the boy did his top-we must pay
them to the holders. But we need not be in a hurry about it; certificates
will do for that. Consider, my friends, you are the persons who must live
and die by this Constitution. A merchant or mechanic may dispose of his
goods, or pack them up in trunks and remove to another clime in the course
of a few months. But you cannot shoulder your lands, or dispose of them when
you please. It therefore behooves you to rouse up, and turn your most
serious and critical attention to this Constitution. . . .
A FARMER
. . A large representation has ever been esteemed by the
best whigs in Great Britain the best barrier against bribery and corruption.
And yet we find a British king, having the disposition of all places, civil
and military, and an immense revenue SQUEEZED out of the very mouths of his
wretched subjects, is able to corrupt the parliament, to vote him any
supplies he demands, to support armies, to defend the prerogatives of his
crown, and carry fire and sword by his fleets and armies; to desolate whole
provinces in the eastern world, to aggrandize himself, and satisfy the
avarice of his tyrannical subjects.
No wonder our American ambassador, struck with the
brilliancy of the British court [John Adams], where everything around St.
James's wears the appearance of wealth, ease and plenty, should imagine a
three branched legislature only can produce these effects, and make the
subjects happy, should write a book in favor of such a government, and send
it over for the illumination of this western world. If this is the sole
fruit of his embassy, America will not canonize him for a saint on account
of his services, when they have experienced the consequences of such a kind
of government as be has planned out. In order to have formed a right
judgment, he should have looked into the ditches which serve for graves for
many of the human race-under hedges which serve as dreary habitations for
the living; into the cottages of the poor and miserable, and critically
examine with how much parsimony the mechanics, the day laborers, cottagers
and villagers live in order to support their high pampered lords-before he
had wrote a book to persuade his country to pursue the same road to
greatness, splendor and glory, and have reflected in his own mind, whether
he could wish to see that country which gave him birth reduced to the same
situation....
Now I submit it to the good sense of the people of these
states, whether it is prudent we should make so liberal and extensive a
grant of power and property to any body of men in these united States,
before they have ever informed the public, the amount of the public debt, or
what the annual expenses of the federal government is, or will be. It is now
almost five years since the peace. Congress has employed thirteen
commissioners, at 1500 dollars per annum, as I am informed, to settle the
public accounts, and we know now no more what the national debt is, than at
the first moment of their appointment. Nor do we know any more what is the
amount of the annual expenses of the federal government, than we do of the
empire of China. To grant therefore such an ample power of taxation, and the
right of soil, to the amount of millions, upon the recommendation of this
honorable Convention, without either knowing the amount of the national
debt, or the annual expenses of government, would not argue, in my opinion,
the highest degree of prudence.
Anti-federalist No. 14
EXTENT OF
TERRITORY UNDER CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT TOO
LARGE TO PRESERVE LIBERTY OR PROTECT
PROPERTY
George Clinton, Governor of New York, was an adversary of
the Constitution. He composed several letters under the nome de plume
"CATO." This essay is from the third letter of "Cato," The New-York Journal
of October 25, 1787
. . . . The recital, or premises on which the new form of
government is erected, declares a consolidation or union of all the thirteen
parts, or states, into one great whole, under the form of the united States,
for all the various and important purposes therein set forth. But whoever
seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the
limits of the united States, together with the variety of its climates,
productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of
inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and politics, in
almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated
republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare,
and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these
objects it must be directed. This unkindred legislature therefore, composed
of interests opposite and dissimilar in their nature, will in its exercise,
emphatically be like a house divided against itself.
The governments of Europe have taken their limits and form
from adventitious circumstances, and nothing can be argued on the motive of
agreement from them; but these adventitious political principles have
nevertheless produced effects that have attracted the attention of
philosophy, which have established axioms in the science of politics
therefrom, as irrefragable as any in Euclid. It is natural, says
Montesquieu, to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it
cannot long subsist: in a large one, there are men of large fortunes, and
consequently of less moderation; there are too great deposits to trust in
the hands of a single subject, an ambitious person soon becomes sensible
that he may be happy, great, and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens,
and that he might raise himself to grandeur, on the ruins of his country. In
large republics, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views, in a
small one, the interest of the public is easily perceived, better
understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses have a less
extent, and of course are less protected. He also shows you, that the
duration of the republic of Sparta was owing to its having continued with
the same extent of territory after all its wars; and that the ambition of
Athens and Lacedemon to command and direct the union, lost them their
liberties, and gave them a monarchy.
From this picture, what can you promise yourselves, on the
score of consolidation of the United States into one government?
Impracticability in the just exercise of it, your freedom insecure, even
this form of government limited in its continuance, the employments of your
country disposed of to the opulent, to whose contumely you will continually
be an object. You must risk much, by indispensably placing trusts of the
greatest magnitude, into the hands of individuals whose ambition for power,
and aggrandizement, will oppress and grind you. Where, from the vast extent
of your territory, and the complication of interests, the science of
government will become intricate and perplexed, and too mysterious for you
to understand and observe; and by which you are to be conducted into a
monarchy, either limited or despotic; the latter, Mr. Locke remarks, is a
government derived from neither nature nor compact.
Political liberty, the great Montesquieu again observes,
consists in security, or at least in the opinion we have of security; and
this security, therefore, or the opinion, is best obtained in moderate
governments, where the mildness of the laws, and the equality of the
manners, beget a confidence in the people, which produces this security, or
the opinion. This moderation in governments depends in a great measure on
their limits, connected with their political distribution.
The extent of many of the states of the Union, is at this
time almost too great for the superintendence of a republican form of
government, and must one day or other revolve into more vigorous ones, or by
separation be reduced into smaller and more useful, as well as moderate
ones. You have already observed the feeble efforts of Massachusetts against
their insurgents; with what difficulty did they quell that insurrection; and
is not the province of Maine at this moment on the eve of separation from
her? The reason of these things is, that for the security of the property of
the community-in which expressive term Mr. Locke makes life, liberty, and
estate, to consist the wheels of a republic are necessarily slow in their
operation. Hence, in large free republics, the evil sometimes is not only
begun, but almost completed, before they are in a situation to turn the
current into a contrary progression. The extremes are also too remote from
the usual seat of government, and the laws, therefore, too feeble to afford
protection to all its parts, and insure domestic tranquility without the aid
of another principle. If, therefore, this state [New York], and that of
North Carolina, had an army under their control, they never would have lost
Vermont, and Frankland, nor the state of Massachusetts suffered an
insurrection, or the dismemberment of her fairest district; but the exercise
of a principle which would have prevented these things, if we may believe
the experience of ages, would have ended in the destruction of their
liberties.
Will this consolidated republic, if established, in its
exercise beget such confidence and compliance, among the citizens of these
states, as to do without the aid of a standing army? I deny that it will.
The malcontents in each state, who will not be a few, nor the least
important, will be exciting factions against it. The fear of a dismemberment
of some of its parts, and the necessity to enforce the execution Of revenue
laws (a fruitful source of oppression) on the extremes and in the other
districts of the government, will incidentally and necessarily require a
permanent force, to be kept on foot. Will not political security, and even
the opinion of it, be extinguished? Can mildness and moderation exist in a
government where the primary incident in its exercise must be force? Will
not violence destroy confidence, and can equality subsist where the extent,
policy, and practice of it will naturally lead to make odious distinctions
among citizens?
The people who may compose this national legislature from
the southern states, in which, from the mildness of the climate, the
fertility of the soil, and the value of its productions, wealth is rapidly
acquired, and where the same causes naturally lead to luxury, dissipation,
and a passion for aristocratic distinction; where slavery is encouraged, and
liberty of course less respected and protected; who know not what it is to
acquire property by their own toil, nor to economize with the savings of
industry-will these men, therefore, be as tenacious of the liberties and
interests of the more northern states, where freedom, independence,
industry, equality and frugality are natural to the climate and soil, as men
who are your own citizens, legislating in your own state, under your
inspection, and whose manners and fortunes bear a more equal resemblance to
your own?
It may be suggested, in answer to this, that whoever is a
citizen of one state is a citizen of each, and that therefore he will be as
interested in the happiness and interest of all, as the one he is delegated
from. But the argument is fallacious, and, whoever has attended to the
history of mankind, and the principles which bind them together as parents,
citizens, or men, will readily perceive it. These principles are, in their
exercise, like a pebble cast on the calm surface of a river-the circles
begin in the center, and are small, active and forcible, but as they depart
from that point, they lose their force, and vanish into calmness.
The strongest principle of union resides within our domestic
walls. The ties of the parent exceed that of any other. As we depart from
home, the next general principle of union is amongst citizens of the same
state, where acquaintance, habits, and fortunes, nourish affection, and
attachment. Enlarge the circle still further, and, as citizens of different
states, though we acknowledge the same national denomination, we lose in the
ties of acquaintance, habits, and fortunes, and thus by degrees we lessen in
our attachments, till, at length, we no more than acknowledge a sameness of
species. Is it, therefore, from certainty like this, reasonable to believe,
that inhabitants of Georgia, or New Hampshire, will have the same
obligations towards you as your own, and preside over your lives, liberties,
and property, with the same care and attachment? Intuitive reason answers in
the negative. . . .
CATO
Anti-federalist No. 15
RHODE ISLAND
IS RIGHT !
This essay appeared in The Massachusetts Gazette, December
7, 1787, as reprinted From The Freeman's Journal; (Or, The North-American
Intelligencer?)
The abuse which has been
thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those
who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the
present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in
the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the
patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the
state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and
have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784,
are absolutely and at once free.
They have fully complied with the recommendations of
Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have
passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never
refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per
cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at
present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of
which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon
produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the
old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the
government.
The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the
Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a
happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us,
is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This
new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our
taxes-the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which
manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations)
-- would be doubled or trebled. The liberty of the press is not stipulated
for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court
is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law
and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting
aside the trial by jury. Congress will have the power of guaranteeing to
every state a right to import Negroes for twenty one years, by which some of
the states, who have now declined that iniquitous traffic, may re-enter into
it-for the private laws of every state are to submit to the superior
jurisdiction of Congress. A standing army is to be kept on foot, by which
the vicious, the sycophantick, and the time- serving will be exalted, and
the brave, the patriotic, and the virtuous will be depressed.
The writer, therefore, thinks it the part of wisdom to
abide, like the state of Rhode Island, by the old articles of confederation,
which, if re-examined with attention, we shall find worthy of great regard;
that we should give high praise to the manly and public spirited sixteen
members, who lately seceded from our house of Assembly [in Pennsylvania];
and that we should all impress with great care, this truth on our minds-That
it is very easy to change a free government into an arbitrary one, but that
it is very difficult to convert tyranny into freedom.
Anti-federalist No. 16
EUROPEANS ADMIRE
AND FEDERALISTS DECRY THE PRESENT
SYSTEM
"ALFRED" defended the Articles of Confederation, taken from
The New-York Journal, December 25, 1787 as reprinted from the [Philadelphia]
Independent Gazetteer.
To the real PATRIOTS of America: . . . America is now free.
She now enjoys a greater portion of political liberty than any other country
under heaven. How long she may continue so depends entirely upon her own
caution and wisdom. If she would look to herself more, and to Europe less, I
am persuaded it would tend to promote her felicity. She possesses all the
advantages which characterize a rich country-rich within herself, she ought
less to regard the politics, the manufactures, and the interests of distant
nations.
When I look to our situation-climate, extent, soil, and its
productions, rivers, ports; when I find I can at this time purchase grain,
bread, meat, and other necessaries of life at as reasonable a rate as in any
country; when I see we are sending great quantities of tobacco, wheat and
flour to England and other parts of the globe beyond the Atlantic; when I
get on the other side of the western mountains, and see an extensive
country, which for its multitude of rivers and fertility of soil is equal,
if not superior, to any other whatever when I see these things, I cannot be
brought to believe that America is in that deplorable ruined condition which
some designing politicians represent; or that we are in a state of anarchy
beyond redemption, unless we adopt, without any addition or amendment, the
new constitution proposed by the late convention; a constitution which, in
my humble opinion, contains the seeds and scions of slavery and despotism.
When the volume of American constitutions [by John Adams] first made its
appearance in Europe, we find some of the most eminent political writers of
the present age, and the reviewers of literature, full of admiration and
declaring they had never before seen so much good sense, freedom, and real
wisdom in one publication. Our good friend Dr. [Richard] Price was charmed,
and almost prophesied the near approach of the happy days of the millennium.
We have lived under these constitutions; and, after the experience of a few
years, some among us are ready to trample them under their feet, though they
have been esteemed, even by our enemies, as "pearls of great price."
Let us not, ye lovers of freedom, be rash and hasty. Perhaps
the real evils we labor under do not arise from these systems. There may be
other causes to which our misfortunes may be properly attributed. Read the
American constitutions, and you will find our essential rights and
privileges well guarded and secured. May not our manners be the source of
our national evils? May not our attachment to foreign trade increase them?
Have we not acted imprudently in exporting almost all our gold and silver
for foreign luxuries? It is now acknowledged that we have not a sufficient
quantity of the precious metals to answer the various purposes of government
and commerce; and without a breach of charity, it may be said, that this
deficiency arises from the want of public virtue, in preferring private
interest to every other consideration.
If the states had in any tolerable degree been able to
answer the requisitions of Congress-if the continental treasury had been so
far assisted, as to have enabled us to pay the interest of our foreign
debt-possibly we should have heard little, very little about a new system of
government. It is a just observation that in modern times money does
everything. If a government can command this unum necessarium from a certain
revenue, it may be considered as wealthy and respectable; if not, it will
lose its dignity, become inefficient and contemptible. But cannot we
regulate our finances and lay the foundations for a permanent and certain
revenue, without undoing all that we have done, without making an entire new
government? The most wise and philosophic characters have bestowed on our
old systems the highest encomiums. Are we sure this new political phenomenon
will not fail? If it should fail, is there not a great probability, that our
last state will be worse than the first? Orators may declaim on the badness
of the times as long as they please, but I must tell them that the want of
public virtue, and the want of money, are two of the principal sources of
our grievances; and if we are -under the pressure of these wants, it ought
to teach us frugality-to adopt a frugal administration of public affairs....
ALFRED
Anti-federalist No. 17
FEDERALIST POWER
WILL ULTIMATELY SUBVERT STATE
AUTHORITY
The "necessary and proper" clause has, from the beginning,
been a thorn in the side of those seeking to reduce federal power, but its
attack by Brutus served to call attention to it, leaving a paper trail of
intent verifying its purpose was not to give Congress anything the
Constitution "forgot," but rather to show two additional tests for any
legislation Congress should attempt: to wit--that the intended actions would
be both necessary AND proper to executing powers given under clauses 1-17 of
Article I Section 8. This is the fameous BRUTUS.
This [new] government is to possess absolute and
uncontrollable powers, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to
every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section eighth,
article first, it is declared, that the Congress shall have power "to make
all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the
government of the united States, or in any department or office thereof."
And by the sixth article, it is declared, "that this Constitution, and the
laws of the united States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the
treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the united
States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State
shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or law of any State to
the contrary notwithstanding." It appears from these articles, that there is
no need of any intervention of the State governments, between the Congress
and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government,
and that the Constitution and laws of every State are nullified and declared
void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this Constitution, or
the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority
of the united States. The government, then, so far as it extends, is a
complete one, and not a confederation. It is as much one complete government
as that of New York or Massachusetts; has as absolute and perfect powers to
make and execute all laws, to appoint officers, institute courts, declare
offenses, and annex penalties, with respect to every object to which it
extends, as any other in the world. So far, therefore, as its powers reach,
all ideas of confederation are given up and lost. It is true this government
is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree
of power is still left to the States; but a little attention to the powers
vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it
is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual States
must very soon be annihilated, except so far as they are barely necessary to
the organization of the general government. The powers of the general
legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance-there is
nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is
within its power. It has the authority to make laws which will affect the
lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can
the Constitution or laws of any State, in any way prevent or impede the full
and complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is
competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises;-there is no limitation
to this power, unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to
which those taxes and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a
limitation. But this is no restriction of the power at all, for by this
clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the common
defense and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have
authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of
what is necessary to provide for the common defense, and they only are to
determine what is for the general welfare. This power, therefore, is neither
more nor less than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises,
at their pleasure; not only the power to lay taxes unlimited as to the
amount they may require, but it is perfect and absolute to raise ;hem in any
mode they please. No State legislature, or any power in the State
governments, have any more to do in carrying this into effect than the
authority of one State has to do with that of another. In the business,
therefore, of laying and collecting taxes, the idea of confederation is
totally lost, and that of one entire republic is embraced. It is proper here
to remark, that the authority to lay and collect taxes is the most important
of any power that can be granted; it connects with it almost all other
powers, or at least will in process of time draw all others after it; it is
the great mean of protection, security, and defense, in a good government,
and the great engine of oppression and tyranny in a bad one. This cannot
fail of being the case, if we consider the contracted limits which are set
by this Constitution, to the State governments, on this article of raising
money. No State can emit paper money, lay any duties or imposts, on imports,
or exports, but by consent of the Congress; and then the net produce shall
be for the benefit of the United States. The only means, therefore, left for
any State to support its government and discharge its debts, is by direct
taxation; and the united States have also power to lay and collect taxes, in
any way they please. Everyone who has thought on the subject, must be
convinced that but small sums of money can he collected in any country, by
direct tax; when the federal government begins to exercise the right of
taxation in all its parts, the legislatures of the several states will find
it impossible to raise monies to support their governments. Without money
they cannot be supported, and they must dwindle away, and, as before
observed, their powers be absorbed in that of the general government.
It might be here shown, that the power in the federal
legislature, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in
war, and their control over the militia, tend not only to a consolidation of
the government, but the destruction of liberty. I shall not, however, dwell
upon these, as a few observations upon the judicial power of this
government, in addition to the preceding, will fully evince the truth of the
position.
The judicial power of the United States is to be vested in a
supreme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may, from time to
time, ordain and establish. The powers of these courts are very extensive;
their jurisdiction comprehends all civil causes, except such as arise
between citizens of the same State; and it extends to all cases in law and
equity arising under the Constitution. One inferior court must be
established, I presume, in each State, at least, with the necessary
executive officers appendant thereto. It is easy to see, that in the common
course of things, these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from
the respectability, of the State courts. These courts will be, in
themselves, totally independent of the States, deriving their authority from
the United States, and receiving from them fixed salaries; and in the course
of human events it is to be expected that they will swallow up all the
powers of the courts in the respective States.
How far the clause in the eighth section of the first
article may operate to do away with all idea of confederated States, and to
effect an entire consolidation of the whole into one general government, it
is impossible to say. The powers given by this article are very general and
comprehensive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing
almost any law. A power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and
proper, for carrying into execution all powers vested by the Constitution in
the government of the united States, or any department or officer thereof,
is a power very comprehensive and definite, and may, for aught I know, be
exercised in such manner as entirely to abolish the State legislatures.
Suppose the legislature of a State should pass a law to raise money to
support their government and pay the State debt; may the Congress repeal
this law, because it may prevent the collection of a tax which they may
think proper and necessary to lay, to provide for the general welfare of the
united States? For all laws made, in pursuance of this Constitution, are the
supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of the different States to the
contrary notwithstanding. By such a law, the government of a particular
State might be overturned at one stroke, and thereby be deprived of every
means of its support.
It is not meant, by stating this case, to insinuate that the
Constitution would warrant a law of this kind! Or unnecessarily to alarm the
fears of the people, by suggesting that the Federal legislature would be
more likely to pass the limits assigned them by the Constitution, than that
of an individual State, further than they are less responsible to the
people. But what is meant is, that the legislature of the United States are
vested with the great and uncontrollable powers of laying and collecting
taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and
supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia,
instituting courts, and other general powers; and are by this clause
invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for
carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as
entirely to annihilate all the State governments, and reduce this country to
one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they
will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual States,
small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the
united States; the latter, therefore, will be naturally inclined to remove
it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring
experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with
power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over
everything that stands in their way. This disposition, which is implanted in
human nature, will operate in the Federal legislature to lessen and
ultimately to subvert the State authority, and having such advantages, will
most certainly succeed, if the Federal government succeeds at all. It must
be very evident, then, that what this Constitution wants of being a complete
consolidation of the several parts of the union into one complete
government, possessed of perfect legislative, judicial, and executive
powers, to all intents and purposes, it will necessarily acquire in its
exercise in operation.
BRUTUS
Anti-federalist No. 18-20
WHAT DOES
HISTORY TEACH? (PART 1)
"AN OLD WHIG," taken from The Massachusetts Gazette,
November 27, 1787, as reprinted from the [Philadelphia] Independent
Gazetteer
. . . . . By the proposed constitution, every law, before it
passes, is to undergo repeated revisions; and the constitution of every
state in the union provide for the revision of the most trifling laws,
either by their passing through different houses of assembly and senate, or
by requiring them to be published for the consideration of the people. Why
then is a constitution which affects all the inhabitants of the united
States-which is to be the foundation of all laws and the source of misery or
happiness to one- quarter of the globe-why is this to be so hastily adopted
or rejected, that it cannot admit of a revision? If a law to regulate
highways requires to be leisurely considered and undergo the examination of
different bodies of men, one after another, before it be passed, why is it
that the framing of a constitution for the government of a great people-a
work which has been justly considered as the greatest effort of human
genius, and which from the beginning of the world has so often baffled the
skill of the wisest men in every age-shall be considered as a thing to be
thrown out, in the first shape which it may happen to assume? Where is the
impracticability of a revision? Cannot the same power which called the late
convention call another? Are not the people still their own masters? If,
when the several state conventions come to consider this constitution, they
should not approve of it, in its present form, they may easily apply to
congress and state their objections. Congress may as easily direct the
calling another convention, as they did the calling the last. The plan may
then be reconsidered, deliberately received and corrected, so as to meet the
approbation of every friend to his country. A few months only will be
necessary for this purpose; and if we consider the magnitude of the object,
we shall deem it well worth a little time and attention. It is Much better
to pause and reflect before hand, than to repent when it is too late; when
no peaceable remedy will be left us, and unanimity will be forever banished.
The struggles of the people against a bad government, when it is once fixed,
afford but a gloomy picture in the annals of mankind, They are often
unfortunate; they are always destructive of private and public happiness;
but the peaceable consent of a people to establish a free and effective
government is one of the most glorious objects that is ever exhibited on the
theater of human affairs. Some, I know, have objected that another
convention will not be likely to agree upon anything-I am far however from
being of that opinion. The public voice calls so loudly for a new
constitution that I have no doubt we shall have one of some sort. My only
fear is that the impatience of the people will lead them to accept the first
that is offered them without examining whether it is right or wrong. And
after all, if a new convention cannot agree upon any amendments in the
constitution, which is at present proposed, we can still adopt this in its
present form; and all further opposition being vain, it is to be hoped we
shall be unanimous in endeavouring to make the best of it. The experiment is
at least worth trying, and I shall be much astonished, if a new convention
called together for the purpose of revising the proposed constitution, do
not greatly reform it ...
It is beyond a doubt that the new federal constitution, if
adopted, will in a great measure destroy, if it does not totally annihilate,
the separate governments of the several states. We shall, in effect, become
one great republic. Every measure of any importance will be continental.
What will be the consequence of this? One thing is evident-that no republic
of so great magnitude ever did or ever can exist. But a few years elapsed,
from the time in which ancient Rome extended her dominions beyond the bounds
of Italy, until the downfall of her republic. And all political writers
agree, that a republican government can exist only in a narrow territory.
But a confederacy of different republics has, in many instances, existed and
flourished for a long time together. The celebrated Helvetian league, which
exists at this moment in full vigor, and with unimpaired strength, while its
origin may be traced to the confines of antiquity, is one among many
examples on this head; and at the same time furnishes an eminent proof of
how much less importance it is, that the constituent parts of a confederacy
of republics may be rightly framed, than it is that the confederacy itself
should be rightly organized. For hardly any two of the Swiss cantons have
the same form of government, and they are almost equally divided in their
religious principles, which have so often rent asunder the firmest
establishments. A confederacy of republics must be the establishment in
America, or we must cease altogether to retain the republican form of
government. From the moment we become one great republic, either in form or
substance, the period is very shortly removed when we shall sink first into
monarchy, and then into despotism. . . . If the men who at different times
have been entrusted to form plans of government for the world, had been
really actuated by no other motives than the public good, the condition of
human nature in all ages would have been widely different from that which
has been exhibited to us in history. In this country perhaps we are
possessed of more than our share of political virtue. If we will exercise a
little patience and bestow our best endeavors on the business, I do not
think it impossible, that we may yet form a federal constitution much
superior to any form of government which has ever existed in the world. But
whenever this important work shall be accomplished, I venture to pronounce
that it will not be done without a careful attention to the Framing of a
bill of rights. . . .
In different nations, we find different grants or
reservations of privileges appealed to in the struggles between the rulers
and the people; many of which, in the different nations of Europe, have long
since been swallowed up and lost by time, or destroyed by the arbitrary hand
of power. In England, we find the people, with the barons at their head,
exacting a solemn resignation of their rights from King John, in their
celebrated magna charta, which was many times renewed in Parliament during
the reigns of his successors. The petition of rights was afterwards
consented to by Charles I and contained a declaration of the liberties of
the people. The habeas corpus act, after the restoration of Charles 11, the
bill of rights, which was obtained of the Prince and Princess of Orange, on
their accession to the throne, and the act of settlement, at the accession
of the Hanover family-are other instances to show the care and watchfulness
of that nation to improve every Opportunity, of the reign of a weak prince
or the revolution in their government, to obtain the most explicit
declarations in favor of their liberties. In like manner the people of this
country, at the revolution, having all power in their own hands, in forming
the constitutions of the several states, took care to secure themselves, by
bills of rights, so as to prevent as far as possible the encroachments of
their future rulers upon the rights of the people. Some of these rights are
said to be unalienable, such as the rights of conscience. Yet even these
have been often invaded, where they have not been carefully secured, by
express and solemn bills and declarations in their favor.
Before we establish a government, whose acts will be the
supreme law of the land, and whose power will extend to almost every case
without exception, we ought carefully to guard ourselves by a bill of
rights, against the invasion of those liberties which it is essential for us
to retain, which it is of no real use for government to deprive us of; but
which, in the course of human events, have been too often insulted with all
the wantonness of an idle barbarity.
AN OLD WHIG
Anti-federalist No. 19 and 20
?
WHAT DOES
HISTORY TEACH? (PART II)
"A NEWPORT MAN," wrote this wit which appeared in The
Newport Mercury, March 17, 1788.
. . . - I perceive in your last [issue a] piece signed "A
Rhode-Island Man," it seems wrote with an air of confidence and triumph; he
speaks of reason and reasoning-I wish he had known or practised some of that
reasoning he so much pretends to; his essay had been much shorter. We are
told in this piece, as well as others on the same side, that an ability
given to British subjects to recover their debts in this country will be one
of the blessings of a new government, by inducing the British to abandon the
frontiers, or be left without excuse. But the British have no other reason
for holding the posts, after the time named in the treaty for their
evacuation, than the last reason of Kings, that is, their guns. And giving
them the treasure of the United States is a very unlikely means of removing
that. If the British subject met with legal impediments to the recovery of
his debts in this country, for [the] British government to have put the same
stop on our citizens would have been a proper, an ample retaliation. But
there is nothing within the compass of possibility of which I am not
perfectly sure, that I am more fully persuaded of than I am, that the
British will never relinquish the posts in question until compelled by
force; because no nation pays less regard to the faith of treaties than the
British. Witness their conduct to the French in 1755, when they took a very
great number of men of war and merchant ships before war was declared,
because the French had built some forts on the south side of an imaginary
line in the wilds of America; and again, the violation of the articles by
which the people of Boston resigned their arms; and the violation of the
capitulation of Charles Town. Again we are told that Congress has no credit
with foreigners, because they have no power to fulfill their engagements.
And this we are told, with a boldness exceeded by nothing but its falsehood,
perhaps in the same paper that announces to the world the loan of a million
of Holland gilders-if I mistake not the sum; a sum equal to 250,000 Spanish
Dollars-and all this done by the procurement of that very Congress whose
insignificancy and want of power had been constantly proclaimed for two or
three years before. The Dutch are the most cautious people on earth, and it
is reasonable to suppose they were abundantly persuaded of the permanency
and efficacy of our government by their risking so much money on it.
We are told that so long as
we withhold this power from
Congress we shall be a weak, despised people. We were long contending for
Independence, and now we are in a passion to be rid of it. But let us
attempt to reason on this subject, and see to which side that will lead us.
Reason is truly defined, in all cases short of mathematical demonstration,
to be a supposing that the like causes will produce the like effects. Let us
proceed by this rule. The Swiss Cantons for a hundred years have remained
separate Independent States, consequently without any controlling power.
Even the little Republic of St. Marino, containing perhaps but little more
ground than the town of Newport, and about five thousand inhabitants,
surrounded by powerful and ambitious neighbors, has kept its freedom and
independence these thirteen hundred years, and is mentioned by travellers as
a very enlightened and happy people. If these small republics, in the
neighborhood of the warlike and intriguing Courts of Paris, Vienna, and
Berlin, have kept their freedom and original form of government, is it not
reasonable to suppose that the same good sense and love of freedom, on this
side the Atlantic, will secure us from all attempt within and without. And
the only internal discord that has happened in Switzerland was on a
religious account, and a supreme controlling power is no security against
this, as appears by what happened in Ireland in the time of Charles the
First, and in France in the time of Henry the Fourth. It seems rational in a
case of this importance to consult the opinion of the ablest men, and to
whom can we better appeal than to J. J. Rousseau, a republican by birth and
education-one of the most exalted geniuses and one of the greatest writers
of his age, or perhaps any age; a man the most disinterested and benevolent
towards mankind; a man the most industrious in the acquisition of knowledge
and information, by travel, conversation, reading, and thinking; and one who
has wrote a Volume on Government entitled the Social Contract, wherein he
inculcates, that the people should examine and determine every public act
themselves. His words are, that "every law that the people have not ratified
in person, is void; it is no law. The people of England think they are free.
They are much mistaken. They are never so but during the election of members
of Parliament. As soon as they are elected, they are slaves, they are
nothing. And by the use they make of their liberty during the short moments
they possess it, they well deserve to lose it." This is far from advising
that thirty thousand souls should resign their judgments and wishes entirely
to one man for two years-to a man, who, perhaps, may go from home sincere
and patriotic but by the time he has dined in pomp for a week with the
wealthy citizens of New York or Philadelphia, will have lost all his rigid
ideas of economy and equality. He becomes fascinated with the elegancies and
luxuries of wealth. . . . Objects and intimations like these soon change the
champion for the people to an advocate for power; and the people, finding
themselves thus basely betrayed, cry that virtue is but a name. We are not
sure that men have more virtue at this time and place than they had in
England in the time of George the Second. Let anyone look into the history
of those times, and see with what boldness men changed sides and deserted
the people in pursuit of profit and power. If to take up the cross and
renounce the pomps and vanities of this sinful world is a hard lesson for
divines, 'tis much harder for politicians. A Cincinnatus, a Cato, a
Fabricius, and a Washington, are rarely to be found. We are told that the
Trustees of our powers and freedom, being mostly married men, and all of
them inhabitants and proprietors of the country, is an ample security
against an abuse of power. Whether human nature be less corrupt than
formerly I will not determine-but this I know: that Julius Caesar, Oliver
Cromwell, and the nobles of Venice, were natives and inhabitants of the
countries whose power they usurped and drenched in blood.
Again, our country is compared to a ship of which we are all
passengers, and, from thence 'tis gravely concluded that no officer can ever
betray or abuse his trust. But that men will sacrifice the public to their
private interest, is a saying too well known to need repeating. And the
instances of designed shipwrecks, and ships run away with by a combination
of masters, supercargoes, and part owners, is so great that nothing can
equal them but those instances in which pretended patriots and politicians
have raised themselves and families to power and greatness, by destroying
that freedom and those laws they were chosen to defend.
If it were necessary to cite more precedents to prove that
the people ought not to trust or remove their power any further from them,
the little Republic of Lucca may be mentioned-which, surrounded by the
Dukedom of Tuscany, has existed under its present constitution about five
hundred years, and as Mr. Addison says, is for the extent of its dominion
the richest and best peopled of all the States of Italy. And he says further
that "the whole administration of the government passes into different hands
every two months." This is very far from confirming the doctrine of choosing
those officers for two years who were before chosen for one. The want of a
decisive, efficient power is much talked of by the discontented, and that we
are in danger of being conquered by the intrigues of European powers. But it
has already been shown that we have delegated a more decisive power to our
Congress than is granted by the Republic Swiss Cantons to their General
Diet. These Republics have enjoyed peace some hundreds of years; while those
governments which possess this decisive, efficient power, so much aimed at,
are as often as twenty or thirty years, drawing their men from the plough
and loom to be shot at and cut each other's throats for the honor of their
respective nations. And by how much further we are from Europe than the
Swiss Cantons with their allies, and Lucca and St. Marino are from France,
Prussia, and Austria, by so much less are we in danger of being conquered
than those republics which have existed, some earlier than others, but the
youngest of them one hundred and thirty years, without being conquered. As
for the United Provinces of Holland, they are but nominal Republics; their
Stadtholder, very much like our intended President, making them in reality a
monarchy, and subject to all its calamities. But supposing that the present
constitution, penned by the ablest men, four or five years in completion,
and its adoption considered as the happiest event-supposing, I say, the
present Constitution destroyed, can a new one be ratified with more
solemnity, agreed to in stronger or more binding terms? What security can be
given that in seven years hence, another Convention shall not be called to
frame a third Constitution? And as ancient Greece counted by olympiads, and
monarchies by their Kings' reigns, we shall date in the first, second, or
third year, of the seventh, eighth, or ninth Constitution.
In treating this subject I have not presumed to advise, and
have intruded but few comments. I have mentioned the state of those
countries which most resemble our own and leave to the natural sense of the
reader to make his own conclusions. The malcontents, the lovers of novelty,
delight much in allegory. Should I be indulged a few words in that way, I
should not compare the new Constitution to a house. I should fetch my simile
from the country and compare it to Siberian Wheat (otherwise called Siberian
cheat) which is known to have been the most praised, the most dear, the most
worthless, and most short-lived thing that was ever adopted. But if the free
men of this continent are weary of that power and freedom they have so
dearly bought and so shortly enjoyed- the power of judging and determining
what laws are most wholesome; what taxes are requisite and sufficient-I say,
if the people are tired of these privileges, now is the time to part with
them forever. Much more might be said to show the bitterness and mischief
contained in this gilded pill, but being fond of brevity, I shall rely on
the good sense of the public to keep themselves out of the trap, and sign
myself in plain English.
A NEWPORT MAN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anti-federalist No.
21
WHY THE
ARTICLES FAILED
This essay is composed of excerpts from "CENTINEL" letters
appearing in the (Philadelphia) Independent Gazetteer, October 5 and
November 30, 1787.
That the present confederation is inadequate to the objects
of the union, seems to be universally allowed. The only question is, what
additional powers are wanting to give due energy to the federal government?
We should, however, be careful, in forming our opinion on this subject, not
to impute the temporary and extraordinary difficulties that have hitherto
impeded the execution of the confederation, to defects in the system itself.
For years past, the harpies of power have been industriously inculcating the
idea that all our difficulties proceed from the impotency of Congress, and
have at length succeeded to give to this sentiment almost universal currency
and belief. The devastations, losses and burdens occasioned by the late war;
the excessive importations of foreign merchandise and luxuries, which have
drained the country of its specie and involved it in debt, are all
overlooked, and the inadequacy of the powers of the present confederation is
erroneously supposed to be the only cause of our difficulties. Hence persons
of every description are revelling in the anticipation of the halcyon days
consequent on the establishment of the new constitution. What gross
deception and fatal delusion! Although very considerable benefit might be
derived from strengthening the hands of Congress, so as to enable them to
regulate commerce, and counteract the adverse restrictions of other nations,
which would meet with the concurrence of all persons; yet this benefit is
accompanied in the new constitution with the scourge of despotic power. . .
.
Taxation is in every government a very delicate and
difficult subject. Hence it has been the policy of all wise statesmen, as
far as circumstances permitted, to lead the people by small beginnings and
almost imperceptible degrees, into the habits of taxation. Where the
contrary conduct has been pursued, it has ever failed of full success, not
unfrequently proving the ruin of the projectors. The imposing of a
burdensome tax at once on a people, without the usual gradations, is the
severest test that any government can be put to; despotism itself has often
proved unequal to the attempt. Under this conviction, let us take a review
of our situation before and since the revolution.
From the first
settlement of this country until the commencement of the late war, the taxes
were so light and trivial as to be scarcely felt by the people. When we
engaged in the expensive contest with Great Britain, the Congress, sensible
of the difficulty of levying the monies necessary to its support, by direct
taxation, had resource to an anticipation of the public resources, by
emitting bills of credit, and thus postponed the necessity of taxation for
several years.
This means was pursued to a most ruinous length. But
about the year 80 or 81, it was wholly exhausted, the bills of credit had
suffered such a depreciation from the excessive quantities in circulation,
that they ceased to be useful as a medium. The country at this period was
very much impoverished and exhausted; commerce had been suspended for near
six years; the husbandman, for want of a market, limited his crops to his
own subsistence; the frequent calls of the militia and long continuance in
actual service, the devastations of the enemy, the subsistence of our own
armies, the evils of the depreciation of the paper money, which fell chiefly
upon the patriotic and virtuous part of the community, had all concurred to
produce great distress throughout America. In this situation of affairs, we
still had the same powerful enemy to contend with, who had even more
numerous and better appointed armies in the field than at any former time.
Our allies were applied to in this exigency, but the pecuniary assistance
that we could procure from them was soon exhausted. The only resource now
remaining was to obtain by direct taxation, the moneys necessary for our
defense. The history of mankind does not furnish a similar instance of an
attempt to levy such enormous taxes at once, nor of a people so wholly
unprepared and uninured to them-the lamp of sacred liberty must indeed have
burned with unsullied lustre, every sordid principle of the mind must have
been then extinct, when the people not only submitted to the grievous
impositions, but cheerfully exerted themselves to comply with the calls of
their country. Their abilities, however, were not equal to furnish the
necessary sums-indeed, the requisition of the year 1782, amounted to the
whole income of their farms and other property, including the means of their
subsistence.
Perhaps the strained exertions of two years would not have
sufficed to the discharge of this requisition. How then can we impute the
difficulties of the people to a due compliance with the requisitions of
Congress, to a defect in the confederation? Any government, however
energetic, in similar circumstances, would have experienced the same fate.
If we review the proceedings of the States, we shall find that they gave
every sanction and authority to the requisitions of Congress that their laws
could confer, that they attempted to collect the sums called for in the same
manner as is proposed to be done in future by the general government,
instead of the State legislatures....
The wheels of the general government having been thus
clogged, and the arrearages of taxes still accumulating, it may be asked
what prospect is there of the government resuming its proper tone, -unless
more compulsory powers are granted? To this it may be answered, that the
produce of imposts on commerce, which all agree to vest in Congress,
together with the immense tracts of land at their disposal, will rapidly
lessen and eventually discharge the present encumbrances. When this takes
place, the mode by requisition will be found perfectly adequate to the
extraordinary exigencies of the union. Congress have lately sold land to the
amount of eight millions of dollars, which is a considerable portion of the
whole debt.
It is to be lamented that the interested and designing have
availed themselves so successfully of the present crisis, and under the
specious pretence of having discovered a panacea for all the ills of the
people, they are about establishing a system of government, that will prove
more destructive to them than the wooden horse filled with soldiers did in
ancient times to the city of Troy. This horse was introduced by their
hostile enemy the Grecians, by a prostitution of the sacred rites of their
religion; in like manner, my fellow citizens, are aspiring despots among
yourselves prostituting the name of a Washington to cloak their designs upon
your liberties.
I would ask how was the proposed Constitution to have
showered down those treasures upon every class of citizens, as has been so
industriously inculcated and so fondly believed by some? Would it have been
by the addition of numerous and expensive establishments? By doubling our
judiciaries, instituting federal courts in every county of every state? By a
superb presidential court? By a large standing army? In short, by putting it
in the power of the future government to levy money at pleasure, and placing
this government so independent of the people as to enable the administration
to gratify every corrupt passion of the mind, to riot on your spoils,
without check or control ?
A transfer to Congress of the power of imposing imposts on
commerce, the unlimited regulation of trade, and to make treaties, I believe
is all that is wanting to render America as prosperous as it is in the power
of any form of government to render her; this properly understood would meet
the views of all the honest and well meaning.
What gave birth to the late continental Convention? Was it
not the situation of our commerce, which lay at the mercy of every foreign
power, who, from motives of interest or enmity, could restrict and control
it without risking a retaliation on the part of America, as Congress was
impotent on this subject?
Such indeed was the case with respect to
Britain, whose hostile regulations gave such a stab to our navigation as to
threaten its annihilation, it became the interest of even the American
merchant to give a preference to foreign bottoms; hence the distress of our
seamen, shipwrights, and every mechanic art dependent on
navigation.
By these regulations too, we were limited in markets for our
produce; our vessels were excluded from their West India islands; many of
our staple commodities were denied entrance in Britain. Hence the husbandman
were distressed by the demand for their crops being lessened and their
prices reduced.
This is the source to which may be traced every evil we
experience, that can be relieved by a more energetic government.
Recollect the language of complaint for years past; compare the
recommendations of Congress, founded on such complaints, pointing out the
remedy; examine the reasons assigned by the different states for appointing
delegates to the late Convention; view the powers vested in that body-they
all harmonize in the sentiment, that the due regulation of trade and
navigation was the anxious wish of every class of citizens, was the great
object of calling the Convention.
This object being provided for by the Constitution proposed
by the general Convention, people overlooked and were not sensible of the
needless sacrifice they were making for it. Allowing for a moment that it
would be possible for trade to flourish under a despotic government, of what
avail would be a prosperous state of commerce, when the produce of it would
be at the absolute disposal of an arbitrary unchecked general government,
who may levy at pleasure the most oppressive taxes; who may destroy every
principle of freedom; who may even destroy the privilege of
complaining....
After so recent a triumph over British despots, after such
torrents of blood and treasure have been spent, after involving ourselves in
the distresses of an arduous war, and incurring such a debt, for the express
purpose of asserting the rights of humanity, it is truly astonishing that a
set of men among ourselves should have had the effrontery to attempt the
destruction of our liberties. But in this enlightened age, to dupe the
people by the arts they are practising, is still more extraordinary. .
.
CENTINEL
Anti-federalist No.
22
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
SIMPLY REQUIRES AMENDMENTS, PARTICULARLY FOR COMMERCIAL POWER AND JUDICIAL
POWER; CONSTITUTION GOES TOO FAR
Benjamin Austin of Massachusetts, used the pen-name
"CANDIDUS." Taken from two letters by "Candidus" which appeared in the
[Boston] Independent Chronicle, December 6 and 20, 1787.
.... Many people are sanguine for the Constitution,
because they apprehend our commerce will be benefited. I would advise those
persons to distinguish between the evils that arise from extraneous causes
and our private imprudencies, and those that arise from our government. It
does not appear that the embarrassments of our trade will be removed by the
adoption of this Constitution. The powers of Europe do not lay any
extraordinary duties on our oil, fish, or tobacco, because of our
government; neither do they discourage our ship building on this account. I
would ask what motive would induce Britain to repeal the duties on our oil,
or France on our fish, if we should adopt the proposed Constitution? Those
nations laid these duties to promote their own fishery, etc., and let us
adopt what mode of government we please, they will pursue their own politics
respecting our imports and exports, unless we can check them by some
commercial regulations.
But it may be said, that such commercial regulations
will take place after we have adopted the Constitution, and that the
northern states would then become carriers for the southern. The great
question then is, whether it is necessary in order to obtain these purposes,
for every state to give up their whole power of legislation and taxation,
and become an unwieldy republic, when it is probable the important object of
our commerce could be effected by a uniform navigation act, giving Congress
full power to regulate the whole commerce of the States? This power Congress
have often said was sufficient to answer all their purposes. The circular
letter from the Boston merchants and others, was urgent on this subject.
Also the navigation act of this state [Massachusetts], was adopted upon
similar principles, and . . . was declared by our Minister in England, to be
the most effectual plan to promote our navigation, provided it had been
adopted by the whole confederacy.
But it may be said, this regulation of commerce,
without energy to enforce a compliance, is quite ideal. Coercion with some
persons seems the principal object, but I believe we have more to expect
from the affections of the people, than from an armed body of men. Provided
a uniform commercial system was adopted, and each State felt its agreeable
operations, we should have but little occasion to exercise force. But
however, as power is thought necessary to raise an army, if required, to
carry into effect any federal measure, I am willing to place it, where it is
likely to be used with the utmost caution. This power I am willing to place
among the confederated States, to be exercised when two thirds of them in
their legislative capacities shall say the common good requires it. But to
trust this power in the hands of a few men delegated for two, four and six
years, is complimenting the ambition of human nature too highly, to risk the
tranquility of these States on their absolute determination. Certain
characters now on the stage, we have reason to venerate, but though this
country is now blessed with a Washington, Franklin, Hancock and Adams, yet
posterity may have reason to rue the day when their political welfare
depends on the decision of men who may fill the places of these worthies....
The advocates for the Constitution, have always assumed an
advantage by saying, that their opposers have never offered any plan as a
substitute; the following outlines are therefore submitted, not as
originating from an individual, but as copied from former resolutions of
Congress, and united with some parts of the Constitution proposed by the
respectable convention. This being the case, I presume it will not be
invalidated by the cant term of anti-federalism.
lst. That the Legislature of each state,
empower Congress to frame a navigation act, to operate uniformly throughout
the states; receiving to Congress all necessary powers to regulate our
commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the
Indian tribes. The revenue arising from the impost to be subject to their
appropriations, "to enable them to fulfill their public engagements with
foreign creditors."
2nd. That the Legislature of each
state, instruct their delegates in Congress, to frame a treaty of AMITY for
the purposes of discharging each state's proportion of the public debt,
either foreign or domestic, and to enforce (if necessary) their immediate
payment. Each state obligating themselves in the treaty of amity, to furnish
(whenever required by Congress) a proportionate number of the Militia who
are ever to be well organized and disciplined, for the purposes of repelling
any invasion; suppressing any insurrection; or reducing any delinquent state
within the confederacy, to a compliance with the federal treaty of commerce
and amity. Such assistance to be furnished by the Supreme Executive of each
state, on the application of Congress. The troops in cases of invasion to be
under the command of the Supreme Executive of the state immediately in
danger; but in cases of insurrection, and when employed against any
delinquent state in the confederacy, the troops to be under the command of
Congress.
3d. That such states as did not join the
confederacy of commerce and amity, should be considered as aliens; and any
goods brought from such state into any of the confederated states, together
with their vessels, should be subject to heavy extra duties.
4th. The treaty of amity, agreed to by
the several states, should expressly declare that no State (without the
consent of Congress) should enter into any treaty, alliances, or
confederacy; grant letters of marque and reprisal; make anything but gold
and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder or
ex post facto law, or impair the obligations of contracts; engage in war, or
declare peace.
5th. A Supreme Judicial Court to be
constituted for the following federal purposes-to extend to all treaties
made previous to, or which shall be made under the authority of the
confederacy; all cases affecting Ambassadors, and other public Ministers and
Consuls; controversies between two or more states; and between citizens of
the same state claiming lands under grants of different states; to define
and punish piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses
against the law of nations.
6th. That it be recommended to Congress,
that the said navigation act, and treaty of amity, be sent to the
Legislatures (or people) of the several states, for their assenting to, and
ratifying the same.
7th. A regular statement and account of
the receipts and expenditures, of all public monies, should be published
from time to time.
The above plan it is humbly conceived-secures the internal
government of the several states; promotes the commerce of the whole union;
preserves a due degree of energy; lays restraints on aliens; secures the
several states against invasions and insurrection by a MILITIA, rather than
a STANDING ARMY; checks all ex post facto laws; cements the states by
certain federal restrictions; confines the judiciary powers to national
matters; and provides for the public information of receipts and
expenditures. In a word, it places us in a complete federal state.
The resolves of Congress, 18th April, 1783, "recommends to
the several States, to invest them with powers to levy for the use of the
United States, certain duties upon goods, imported from any foreign port,
island or plantation;" which measures is declared by them, "to be a system
more free, from well founded exception, and is better calculated to receive
the approbation of the several States, than any other, that the wisdom of
Congress could devise; and if adopted, would enable them to fulfill their
public engagements with their foreign creditors.". . . .
Should we adopt this plan, no extraordinary expenses would
arise, and Congress having but one object to attend, every commercial
regulation would be uniformly adopted; the duties of impost and excise,
would operate equally throughout the states; our ship building and carrying
trade, would claim their immediate attention; and in consequence thereof,
our agriculture, trade and manufactures would revive and flourish. No acts
of legislation, independent of this great business, would disaffect one
State against the other; but the whole, . . . in one Federal System of
commerce, would serve to remove all local attachments, and establish our
navigation upon a most extensive basis. The powers of Europe, would be
alarmed at our Union, and would fear lest we should retaliate on them by
laying restrictions on their trade....
These states, by the blessing of Heaven, are now in a very
tranquil state. This government, in particular, has produced an instance of
ENERGY, in suppressing a late rebellion, which no absolute monarchy can
boast. And notwithstanding the insinuations of a "small party," who are ever
branding the PEOPLE with the most opprobrious epithets-representing them as
aiming to level all distinctions; emit paper money; encourage the
rebellion-yet the present General Court, the voice of that body, whom they
have endeavored to stigmatize, have steadily pursued measures foreign from
the suggestions of such revilers. And the public credit has been constantly
appreciating since the present Administration.
Let us then be cautious how we disturb this general
harmony. Every exertion is now making, by the people, to discharge their
taxes. Industry and frugality prevail. Our commerce is every day increasing
by the enterprise of our merchants. And above all, the PEOPLE of the several
states are convinced of the necessity of adopting some Federal Commercial
Plan....
CANDIDUS
Anti-federalist No.
23
CERTAIN POWERS NECESSARY
FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, CAN AND SHOULD BE LIMITED
In Federalist No. 23, Alexander Hamilton spoke of the
necessity for an energetic government. "BRUTUS" replied.
Taken from the 7th and 8th essays of "Brutus" in The
New-York Journal, January 3 and 10, 1788.
In a confederated government, where the powers are
divided between the general and the state government, it is essential . . .
that the revenues of the country, without which no government can exist,
should be divided between them, and so apportioned to each, as to answer
their respective exigencies, as far as human wisdom can effect such a
division and apportionment....
No such allotment is made in this constitution, but
every source of revenue is under the control of Congress; it therefore
follows, that if this system is intended to be a complex and not a simple, a
confederate and not an entire consolidated government, it contains in it the
sure seeds of its own dissolution. One of two things must happen. Either the
new constitution will become a mere nudum pactum, and all the authority of
the rulers under it be cried down, as has happened to the present
confederacy. Or the authority of the individual states will be totally
supplanted, and they will retain the mere form without any of the powers of
government. To one or the other of these issues, I think, this new
government, if it is adopted, will advance with great celerity.
It is said, I know, that such a separation of the sources
of revenue, cannot be made without endangering the public safety-"unless
(says a writer) [Alexander Hamilton] it can be shown that the circumstances
which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate
limits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally
disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be
no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and
protection of the community, etc."(1) (1 Federalist, No. 23.)
The pretended demonstration of this writer will instantly
vanish, when it is considered, that the protection and defense of the
community is not intended to be entrusted solely into the hands of the
general government, and by his own confession it ought not to be. It is true
this system commits to the general government the protection and defense of
the community against foreign force and invasion, against piracies and
felonies on the high seas, and against insurrection among ourselves. They
are also authorized to provide for the administration of justice in certain
matters of a general concern, and in some that I think are not so. But it
ought to be left to the state governments to provide for the protection and
defense of the citizen against the hand of private violence, and the wrongs
done or attempted by individuals to each other. Protection and defense
against the murderer, the robber, the thief, the cheat, and the unjust
person, is to be derived from the respective state governments. The just way
of reasoning therefore on this subject is this, the general government is to
provide for the protection and defense of the community against foreign
attacks, etc. They therefore ought to have authority sufficient to effect
this, so far as is consistent with the providing for our internal protection
and defense. The state governments are entrusted with the care of
administering justice among its citizens, and the management of other
internal concerns; they ought therefore to retain power adequate to that
end. The preservation of internal peace and good order, and the due
administration of law and justice, ought to be the first care of every
government. The happiness of a people depends infinitely more on this than
it does upon all that glory and respect which nations acquire by the most
brilliant martial achievements. And I believe history will furnish but few
examples of nations who have duly attended to these, who have been subdued
by foreign invaders. If a proper respect and submission to the laws
prevailed over all orders of men in our country; and if a spirit of public
and private justice, economy, and industry influenced the people, we need
not be under any apprehensions but what they would be ready to repel any
invasion that might be made on the country. And more than this, I would not
wish from them. A defensive war is the only one I think justifiable. I do
not make these observations to prove, that a government ought not to be
authorised to provide for the protection and defense of a country against
external enemies, but to show that this is not the most important, much less
the only object of their care.
The European governments are almost all of them framed,
and administered with a view to arms, and war, as that in which their chief
glory consists. They mistake the end of government. It was designed to save
men's lives, not to destroy them. We ought to furnish the world with an
example of a great people, who in their civil institutions hold chiefly in
view, the attainment of virtue, and happiness among ourselves. Let the
monarchs in Europe share among them the glory of depopulating countries, and
butchering thousands of their innocent citizens, to revenge private
quarrels, or to punish an insult offered to a wife, a mistress, or a
favorite. I envy them not the honor, and I pray heaven this country may
never be ambitious of it. The czar Peter the great, acquired great glory by
his arms; but all this was nothing, compared with the true glory which he
obtained, by civilizing his rude and barbarous subjects, diffusing among
them knowledge, and establishing and cultivating the arts of life. By the
former he desolated countries, and drenched the earth with human blood; by
the latter he softened the ferocious nature of his people, and pointed them
to the means of human happiness. The most important end of government then,
is the proper direction of its internal police, and economy; this is the
province of the state governments, and it is evident, and is indeed
admitted, that these ought to be under their control. Is it not then
preposterous, and in the highest degree absurd, when the state governments
are vested with powers so essential to the peace and good order of society,
to take from them the means of their own preservation?
The idea that the powers of congress in respect to revenue
ought to be unlimited, because 'the circumstances which may affect the
public safety are not reducible to certain determinate limits' is novel, as
it relates to the government of the united States. The inconveniencies which
resulted from the feebleness of the present confederation was discerned, and
felt soon after its adoption. It was soon discovered, that a power to
require money, without either the authority or means to enforce a collection
of it, could not be relied upon either to provide for the common defense,
discharge the national debt, or for support of government. Congress
therefore, as early as February 1781, recommended to the states to invest
them with a power to levy an impost of :five per cent ad valorem, on all
imported goods, as a fund to be appropriated to discharge the debts already
contracted, or which should hereafter be contracted for the support of the
war, to be continued until the debts should be fully and finally discharged.
There is not the most distant idea held out in this act, that an unlimited
power to collect taxes, duties and excises was necessary to be vested in the
United States, and yet this was a time of the most pressing danger and
distress. The idea then was, that if certain definite funds were assigned to
the union, which were certain in their natures, productive, and easy of
collection, it would enable them to answer their engagements, and provide
for their defense, and the impost of five per cent was fixed upon for the
purpose.
This same subject was revived in the winter and spring of
1783, and after a long consideration of the subject, many schemes were
proposed. The result was, a recommendation of the revenue system of April
1783; this system does not suggest an idea that it was necessary to grant
the United States unlimited authority in matters of revenue. A variety of
amendments were proposed to this system, some of which are upon the journals
of Congress, but it does not appear that any of them proposed to invest the
general government with discretionary power to raise money. On the contrary,
all of them limit them to certain definite objects, and fix the bounds over
which they could not pass. This recommendation was passed at the conclusion
of the war, and was founded on an estimate of the whole national debt. It
was computed, that one million and an half of dollars, in addition to the
impost, was a sufficient sum to pay the annual interest of the debt, and
gradually to abolish the principal. Events have proved that their estimate
was sufficiently liberal, as the domestic debt appears upon its being
adjusted to be less than it was computed; and since this period a
considerable portion of the principal of the domestic debt has been
discharged by the sale of the western lands. It has been constantly urged by
Congress, and by individuals, ever since, until lately, that had this
revenue been appropriated by the states, as it was recommended, it would
have been adequate to every exigency of the union. Now indeed it is
insisted, that all the treasures of the country are to be under the control
of that body, whom we are to appoint to provide for our protection and
defense against foreign enemies. The debts of the several states, and the
support of the governments of them are to trust to fortune and accident. If
the union should not have occasion for all the money they can raise, they
will leave a portion for the state, but this must be a matter of mere grace
and favor. Doctrines like these would not have been listened to by any state
in the union, at a time when we were pressed on every side by a powerful
enemy, and were called upon to make greater exertions than we have any
reason to expect we shall ever be again. . . .
I may be asked to point out the sources, from which the
general government could derive a sufficient revenue, to answer the demands
of the union. ... There is one source of revenue, which it is agreed, the
general government ought to have the sole control of. This is an impost upon
all goods imported from foreign countries. This would, of itself, be very
productive, and would be collected with ease and certainty. It will be a
fund too, constantly increasing, for our commerce will grow with the
productions of the country. And these, together with our consumption of
foreign goods, wilt increase with our population. It is said, that the
impost will not produce a sufficient sum to satisfy the demands of the
general government; perhaps it would not.... My own opinion is, that the
objects from which the general government should have authority to raise a
revenue, should be of such a nature, that the tax should be raised by simple
laws, with few officers, with certainty and expedition, and with the least
interference with the internal police of the states. Of this nature is the
impost on imported goods. And it appears to me that a duty on exports, would
also be of this nature. Therefore, for ought I can discover, this would be
the best source of revenue to grant the general government. I know neither
the Congress nor the state legislatures will have authority under the new
constitution to raise a revenue in this way. But I cannot perceive the
reason of the restriction. It appears to me evident, that a tax on articles
exported, would be as nearly equal as any that we can expect to lay, and it
certainly would be collected with more ease and less expense than any direct
tax. I do not however, contend for this mode; it may be liable to well
founded objections that have not occurred to me. But this I do contend for,
that some mode is practicable, and that limits must be marked between the
general government, and the states on this head, or if they be not, either
the Congress in the exercise of this power, will deprive the state
legislatures of the means of their existence, or the states by resisting the
constitutional authority of the general government, will render it
nugatory....
The next powers vested by this Constitution in the general
government, which we shall consider, are those which authorize them to
"borrow money on the credit of the united States, and to raise and support
armies." I take these two together and connect them with the power to lay
and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, because their extent, and
the danger that will arise from the exercise of these powers, cannot be
fully understood, unless they are viewed in relation to each other.
The power to borrow money is general and unlimited, and
the clause so often before referred to, authorizes the passing [of] any laws
proper and necessary to carry this into execution. Under this authority,
Congress may mortgage any or all the revenues of the union, as a fund to
loan money upon; and it is probable, in this way, they may borrow of foreign
nations, a principal sum, the interest of which will be equal to the annual
revenues of the country. By this means, they may create a national debt, so
large, as to exceed the ability of the country ever to sink. I can scarcely
contemplate a greater calamity that could befall this country, than to be
loaded with a debt exceeding their ability ever to discharge. If this be a
just remark, it is unwise and improvident to vest in the general government
a power to borrow at discretion, without any limitation or restriction.
It may possibly happen that the safety and welfare of the
country may require, that money be borrowed, and it is proper when such a
necessity arises that the power should be exercised by the general
government. But it certainly ought never to be exercised, but on the most
urgent occasions, and then we should not borrow of foreigners if we could
possibly avoid it.
The constitution should therefore have so restricted the
exercise of this power as to have rendered it very difficult for the
government to practice it. The present confederation requires the assent of
nine states to exercise this, and a number of other important powers of the
confederacy. It would certainly have been a wise provision in this
constitution, to have made it necessary that two thirds of the members
should assent to borrowing money. When the necessity was indispensable, this
assent would always be given, and in no other cause ought it to be.
The power to raise armies is indefinite and unlimited, and
authorises the raising [of] forces, as well in peace as in war. Whether the
clause which empowers the Congress to pass all laws which are proper and
necessary, to carry this into execution, will not authorise them to impress
men for the army, is a question well worthy [of] consideration. If the
general legislature deem it for the general welfare to raise a body of
troops, and they cannot be procured by voluntary enlistments, it seems
evident, that it will be proper and necessary to effect it, that men be
impressed from the militia to make up the deficiency.
These powers taken in connection, amount to this: that the
general government have unlimited authority and control over all the wealth
and all the force of the union. The advocates for this scheme, would favor
the world with a new discovery, if they would show, what kind of freedom or
independency is left to the state governments, when they cannot command any
part of the property or of the force of the country, but at the will of the
Congress. It seems to me as absurd, as it would be to say, that I was free
and independent, when I had conveyed all my property to another, and was
tenant to him, and had beside, given an indenture of myself to serve him
during life. . . .
Anti-federalist No.
24
OBJECTIONS TO
A STANDING ARMY (PART I)
BRUTUS
The first essay is taken from the ninth letter of "BRUTUS"
which appeared in The New-York Journal, January 17, 1788
. . . . . Standing armies are dangerous to the liberties
of a people. . . . [If] necessary, the truth of the position might be
confirmed by the history of almost every nation in the world. A cloud of the
most illustrious patriots of every age and country, where freedom has been
enjoyed, might be adduced as witnesses in support of the sentiment. But I
presume it would be useless, to enter into a labored argument, to prove to
the people of America, a position which has so long and so generally been
received by them as a kind of axiom.
Some of the advocates for this new system controvert this
sentiment, as they do almost every other that has been maintained by the
best writers on free government. Others, though they will not expressly
deny, that standing armies in times of peace are dangerous, yet join with
these in maintaining, that it is proper the general government should be
vested with the power to do it. I shall now proceed to examine the arguments
they adduce in support of their opinions.
A writer, in favor of this system, treats this
objection as a ridiculous one. He supposes it would be as proper to provide
against the introduction of Turkish Janizaries, or against making the
Alcoran a rule of faith.'
{1 A citizen of America
[Noah Webster], An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the
Federal Constitution proposed by the late Convention held at Philadelphia.
With Answers to the Principal Objections Raised Against the System
(Philadelphia, 1787), reprinted in Ford (ed.), Pamphlets pp. 29-65.}
From the positive, and dogmatic manner, in which this
author delivers his opinions, and answers objections made to his
sentiments-one would conclude, that he was some pedantic pedagogue who had
been accustomed to deliver his dogmas to pupils, who always placed implicit
faith in what he delivered.
But, why is this provision so ridiculous? Because,
says this author, it is unnecessary. But, why is it unnecessary? Because,
"the principles and habits, as well as the power of the Americans are
directly opposed to standing armies; and there is as little necessity to
guard against them by positive constitutions, as to prohibit the
establishment of the Mahometan religion." It is admitted then, that a
standing army in time of peace is an evil. I ask then, why should this
government be authorised to do evil? If the principles and habits of the
people of this country are opposed to standing armies in time of peace, if
they do not contribute to the public good, but would endanger the public
liberty and happiness, why should the government be vested with the power?
No reason can be given, why rulers should be authorised to do, what, if
done, would oppose the principles and habits of the people, and endanger the
public safety; but there is every reason in the world, that they should be
prohibited from the exercise of such a power. But this author supposes, that
no danger is to be apprehended from the exercise of this power, because if
armies are kept up, it will be by the people themselves, and therefore, to
provide against it would be as absurd as for a man to "pass a law in his
family, that no troops should be quartered in his family by his consent."
This reasoning supposes, that the general government is to be exercised
by the people of America themselves. But such an idea is groundless and
absurd. There is surely a distinction between the people and their rulers,
even when the latter are representatives of the former. They certainly are
not identically the same, and it cannot be disputed, but it may and often
does happen, that they do not possess the same sentiments or pursue the same
interests. I think I have shown [in a previous paper] that as this
government is constructed, there is little reason to expect, that the
interest of the people and their rulers will be the same.
Besides, if the habits and sentiments of the people
of America are to be relied upon, as the sole security against the
encroachment of their rulers, all restrictions in constitutions are
unnecessary; nothing more is requisite, than to declare who shall be
authorized to exercise the powers of government, and about this we need not
be very careful-for the habits and principles of the people will oppose
every abuse of power. This I suppose to be the sentiments of this author, as
it seems to be of many of the advocates of this new system. An opinion like
this, is as directly opposed to the principles and habits of the people of
America, as it is to the sentiments of every writer of reputation on the
science of government, and repugnant to the principles of reason and common
sense.
The idea that there is no danger of the establishment of a
standing army, under the new constitution, is without
foundation.
It is a well known fact, that a number of those who
had an agency in producing this system, and many of those who it is probable
will have a principal share in the administration of the government under
it, if it is adopted, are avowedly in favor of standing armies. It is a
language common among them, "That no people can be kept in order, unless the
government have an army to awe them into obedience; it is necessary to
support the dignity of government, to have a military establishment. And
there will not be wanting a variety of plausible reasons to justify the
raising one, drawn from the danger we are in from the Indians on our
frontiers, or from the European provinces in our neighborhood. If to this we
add, that an army will afford a decent support, and agreeable employment to
the young men of many families, who are too indolent to follow occupations
that will require care and industry, and too poor to live without doing any
business, we can have little reason to doubt but that we shall have a large
standing army as soon as this government can find money to pay them, and
perhaps sooner.
A writer, who is the boast of the advocates of this
new constitution, has taken great pains to show, that this power was proper
and necessary to be vested in the general government.
He sets out with calling in question the candor and
integrity of those who advance the objection; and with insinuating, that it
is their intention to mislead the people, by alarming their passions, rather
than to convince them by arguments addressed to their
understandings.
The man who reproves another for a fault, should be
careful that he himself be not guilty of it. How far this writer has
manifested a spirit of candor, and has pursued fair reasoning on this
subject, the impartial public will judge, when his arguments pass before
them in review.
He first attempts to show, that this objection is
futile and disingenuous, because the power to keep up standing armies, in
time of peace, is vested, under the present government, in the legislature
of every state in the union, except two. Now this is so far from being true,
that it is expressly declared by the present articles of confederation, that
no body of forces "Shall be kept up by any state, in time of peace, except
such number only, as in the judgment of the United States in Congress
assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the
defence of such state." Now, was it candid and ingenuous to endeavour to
persuade the public, that the general government had no other power than
your own legislature have on this head; when the truth is, your legislature
have no authority to raise and keep up any forces ?
He next tells us, that the power given by this
constitution, on this head, is similar to that which Congress possess under
the present confederation. As little ingenuity is manifested in this
representation as in that of the former.
I shall not undertake to inquire whether or not Congress
are vested with a power to keep up a standing army in time of peace; it has
been a subject warmly debated in Congress, more than once, since the peace;
and one of the most respectable states in the union, were so fully convinced
that they had no such power, that they expressly instructed their delegates
to enter a solemn protest against it on the journals of Congress, should
they attempt to exercise it.
But should it be admitted that they have the power, there
is such a striking dissimilarity between the restrictions under which the
present Congress can exercise it, and that of the proposed government, that
the comparison will serve rather to show the impropriety of vesting the
proposed government with the power, than of justifying it.
It is acknowledged by this writer, that the powers
of Congress, under the present confederation, amount to little more than
that of recommending. If they determine to raise troops, they are obliged to
effect it through the authority of the state legislatures. This will, in the
first instance, be a most powerful restraint upon them, against ordering
troops to be raised. But if they should vote an army, contrary to the
opinion and wishes of the people, the legislatures of the respective states
would not raise them. Besides, the present Congress hold their places at the
wilt and pleasure of the legislatures of the states who send them, and no
troops can be raised, but by the assent of nine states out of the thirteen.
Compare the power proposed to be lodged in the legislature on this head,
under this constitution, with that vested in the present Congress, and every
person of the least discernment, whose understanding is not totally blinded
by prejudice, will perceive, that they bear no analogy to each other. Under
the present confederation, the representatives of nine states, out of
thirteen, must assent to the raising of troops, or they cannot be levied.
Under the proposed constitution, a less number than the representatives of
two states, in the house of representatives, and the representatives of
three states and an half in the senate, with the assent of the president,
may raise any number of troops they please. The present Congress are
restrained from an undue exercise of this power; from this consideration,
they know the state legislatures, through whose authority it must be carried
into effect, would not comply with the requisition for the purpose, [if] it
was evidently opposed to the public good. The proposed constitution
authorizes the legislature to carry their determinations into execution,
without intervention of any other body between them and the people. The
Congress under the present form are amenable to, and removable by, the
legislatures of the respective states, and are chosen for one year only. The
proposed constitution does not make the members of the legislature
accountable to, or removable by the state legislatures at all; and they are
chosen, the one house for six, and the other for two years; and cannot be
removed until their time of service is expired, let them conduct ever so
badly. The public will judge, from the above comparison, how just a claim
this writer has to that candor he asserts to possess. In the mean time, to
convince him, and the advocates for this system, that I possess some share
of candor, I pledge myself to give up all opposition to it, on the head of
standing armies, if the power to raise them be restricted as it is in the
present confederation; and I believe I may safely answer, not only for
myself, but for all who make the objection, that they will [not] be
satisfied with less.
Anti-federalist No.
25
OBJECTIONS TO A STANDING
ARMY (PART II)
From the tenth letter of "BRUTUS" appearing in The
New-York Journal, January 24, 1788.
The liberties of a
people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers
may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations
of power, which they may see proper to exercise; but there is great hazard,
that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority
they are raised, and establish one [rule] according to the pleasure of their
leaders.
We are informed, in the faithful pages of history,
of such events frequently happening. Two instances have been mentioned in a
former paper. They are so remarkable, that they are worthy of the most
careful attention of every lover of freedom. They are taken from the history
of the two most powerful nations that have ever existed in the world; and
who are the most renowned, for the freedom they enjoyed, and the excellency
of their constitutions - I mean Rome and Britain.
In the first, the liberties of the
commonwealth were destroyed, and the constitution over-turned, by an army,
led by Julius Caesar, who was appointed to the command by the constitutional
authority of that commonwealth. He changed it from a free republic, whose fame ... is still
celebrated by all the world, into that of the most absolute
despotism. A standing army effected this change, and
a standing army supported it through a succession of ages, which are marked
in the annals of history with the most horrid cruelties, bloodshed, and
carnage-the most devilish, beastly, and unnatural vices, that ever punished
or disgraced human nature.
The same army, that in
Britain, vindicated the liberties of that people from the encroachments and
despotism of a tyrant king, assisted Cromwell, their General,
in wresting from the people,
that liberty they had so dearly earned.
You may be told, these
instances will not apply to our case. But those who would persuade you to
believe this, either mean to deceive you, or have not themselves considered
the subject.
I firmly believe, no country
in the world had ever a more patriotic army, than the one which so ably
served this country in the late war. But had the General who commanded them
been possessed of the spirit of a Julius Caesar or a Cromwell, the liberties
of this country . - . [might have] in all probability
terminated with the
war. Or bad they been maintained, [they] might have cost
more blood and treasure than was expended in the conflict with Great
Britain. When an anonymous writer addressed the officers of the army at the
close of the war, advising them not to part with their arms, until justice
was done them-the effect it had is well known. It affected them like an
electric shock. He wrote like Caesar; and had the commander in chief, and a
few more officers of rank, countenanced the measure, the desperate
resolution. . . [might have] been taken, to refuse to disband. What the
consequences of such a determination would have been, heaven only knows. The
army were in the full vigor of health and spirits, in the habit of
discipline, and possessed of all our military stores and apparatus. They
would have acquired great accessions of strength from the country. Those who
were disgusted at our republican forms of government (for such there then
were, of high rank among us) would have lent them all their aid. We should
in all probability have seen a constitution and laws dictated to us, at the
head of an army, and at the point of a bayonet, and the liberties for which
we had so severely struggled, snatched from us in a moment. It remains a
secret, yet to be revealed, whether this measure was not suggested, or at
least countenanced, by some, who have bad great influence in producing the
present system. Fortunately indeed for this country, it had at the head of
the army, a patriot as well as a general; and many of our principal officers
had not abandoned the characters of citizens, by assuming that of soldiers;
and therefore, the scheme proved abortive. But are we to expect, that this
will always be the case? Are we so much better than the people of other ages
and of other countries, that the same allurements of power and greatness,
which led them aside from their duty, will have no influence upon men in our
country? Such an idea is wild and extravagant. Had we indulged such a
delusion, enough has appeared in a little time past, to convince the most
credulous, that the passion for pomp, power, and greatness, works as
powerfully in the hearts of many of our better sort, as it ever did in any
country under heaven. Were the same opportunity again to offer, we should
very probably be grossly disappointed, if we made dependence, that all who
then rejected the overture, would do it again.
From these remarks, it appears, that the evils to be
feared from a large standing army in time of peace, do not arise solely from
the apprehension, that the rulers may employ
them for the purpose of promoting their own ambitious views; but that equal,
and perhaps greater danger, is to be apprehended from their overturning the
constitutional powers of the government, and assuming the power to dictate
any form they please.
The advocates for power, in support of this right in the
proposed government, urge that a restraint upon the discretion of the
legislatures, in respect to military establishments in time of peace, would
be improper to be imposed, because they say, it will be necessary to
maintain small garrisons on the frontiers, to guard against the depredations
of the Indians, and to be prepared to repel any encroachments or invasions
that may be made by Spain or Britain.
The amount of this argument stripped of the abundant
verbiages with which the author has dressed it, is this:
It will probably be necessary to keep up a small body of
troops to garrison a few posts, which it will be necessary to maintain, in
order to guard against the sudden encroachments of the Indians, or of the
Spaniards and British; and therefore, the general government ought to be
invested with power to raise and keep up a standing army in time of peace,
without restraint, at their discretion.
I confess, I cannot perceive that the conclusion
follows from the premises. Logicians say, it is not good reasoning to infer
a general conclusion from particular premises. Though I am not much
of a logician, it seems to me, this argument is very like that species of
reasoning.
When the patriots in the parliament in Great Britain,
contended with such force of argument, and all the powers of eloquence,
against keeping up standing armies in time of peace, it is obvious they
never entertained an idea, that small garrisons on their frontiers, or in
the neighborhood of powers from whom they were in danger of encroachments,
or guards to take care of public arsenals, would thereby be prohibited.
The advocates for this power further urge that it is
necessary, because it may, and probably will happen, that circumstances will
render it requisite to raise an army to be prepared to repel attacks of an
enemy, before a formal declaration of war, which in modern times has fallen
into disuse. If the constitution prohibited the raising an army, until a war
actually commenced, it would deprive the government of the power of
providing for the defense of the country, until the enemy were within our
territory. If the restriction is not to extend to the raising armies in
cases of emergency, but only to the keeping them up, this would leave the
matter to the discretion of the legislature, and they might, under the
pretence that there was danger of an invasion, keep up the army as long as
they judged proper-and hence it is inferred, that the legislature should
have authority to raise and keep up an army without any restriction. But
from these premises nothing more will follow than this: that the legislature
should not be so restrained, as to put it out of their power to raise an
army, when such exigencies as are instanced shall arise. But it does not
thence follow, that the government should be empowered to raise and maintain
standing armies at their discretion as well in peace as in war. If indeed,
it is impossible to vest the general government with the power of raising
troops to garrison the frontier posts, to guard arsenals, or to be prepared
to repel an attack, when we saw a power preparing to make one, without
giving them a general and indefinite authority to raise and keep up armies,
without any restriction or qualification, then this reasoning might have
weight; but this has not been proved nor can it be.
It is admitted that to prohibit the general government
from keeping up standing armies, while yet they were authorised to raise
them in case of exigency, would be an insufficient guard against the danger.
A discretion of such latitude would give room to elude the force of the
provision.
It is also admitted that an absolute prohibition against
raising troops, except in cases of actual war, would be improper; because it
will be requisite to raise and support a small number of troops to garrison
the important frontier posts, and to guard arsenals; and it may happen, that
the danger of an attack from a foreign power may be so imminent, as to
render it highly proper we should raise an army, in order to be prepared to
resist them. But to raise and keep up forces for such purposes and on such
occasions, is not included in the idea of keeping up standing armies in
times of peace.
It is a thing very practicable to give the government
sufficient authority to provide for these cases, and at the same time to
provide a reasonable and competent security against the evil of a standing
army-a clause to the following purpose would answer the end:
As standing armies in time of
peace are dangerous to liberty, and have often been the means of overturning
the best constitutions of government, no standing army, or troops of any
description whatsoever, shall be raised or kept up by the legislature,
except so many as shall be necessary for guards to the arsenals of the
united States, or for garrisons to such posts on the
frontiers, as it shall be deemed absolutely necessary to hold, to secure the
inhabitants, and facilitate the trade with the Indians: unless when the united States are threatened with an attack or
invasion from some foreign power, in which case the
legislature shall be authorised to raise an army to be prepared to repel the
attack; provided that no troops whatsoever shall be raised in time of peace,
without the assent of two thirds of the members, composing both houses of
the legislature.
A clause similar to this would afford sufficient latitude
to the legislature to raise troops in all cases that were really necessary,
and at the same time competent security against the establishment of
that dangerous engine of despotism, a standing army.
The same writer who advances the arguments I have noticed,
makes a number of other observations with a view to prove that the power to
raise and keep up armies ought to be discretionary in the general
legislature. Some of them are curious. He instances the raising of troops in
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, to show the necessity of keeping a standing
army in time of peace; the least reflection must convince every candid mind
that both these cases are totally foreign to his purpose. Massachusetts
raised a body of troops for six months, at the expiration of which they were
to disband ... ; this looks very little like a standing army. But beside,
was that commonwealth in a state of peace at that time? So far from it, that
they were in the most violent commotions and contests, and their legislature
had formally declared that an unnatural rebellion existed within the state.
The situation of Pennsylvania was similar; a number of armed men had levied
war against the authority of the state and openly avowed their intention of
withdrawing their allegiance from it. To what purpose examples are brought,
of states raising troops for short periods in times of war or insurrections,
on a question concerning the propriety of keeping up standing armies in
times of peace, the public must judge.
It is further said, that no danger can arise from this
power being lodged in the hands of the general government, because the
legislatures will be a check upon them, to prevent their abusing it.
This is offered, as what force there is in it will
hereafter receive a more particular examination. At present, I shall only
remark, that it is difficult to conceive how the state
legislatures can, in any case, hold a
check over the general legislature, in a constitutional way.
The latter has, in every instance to which their powers extend, complete
control over the former. The state legislatures can, in no case-by law,
resolution, or otherwise of right, prevent or impede the general government,
from enacting any law, or executing it, which this constitution
authorizes them to enact or execute. If then the state legislatures
check the general legislature, it must be by exciting the people to resist
constitutional laws. In this way every individual, or every body of men, may
check any government, in proportion to the influence they may have over the
body of the people. But such kinds of checks as these, though they sometimes
correct the abuses of government, [more) often destroy all
government.
It is further said, that no danger is to be
apprehended from the exercise of this power, because it is lodged in the
hands of representatives of the people. If they
abuse it, it is in the power of the people to remove them, and choose others
who will pursue their interests....
That it is unwise in
any people, to authorize their rulers to do, what, if done, would prove
injurious-I have, in some former numbers, shown. . . .
The
representation in the proposed government will be a mere shadow without the
substance. I am so confident that I am well founded in this opinion, that I
am persuaded if it was to be adopted or rejected, upon a fair discussion of
its merits without taking into contemplation circumstances extraneous to it,
as reasons for its adoption, nineteen-twentieths of the sensible men in the
union would reject it on this account alone; unless its powers were confined
to much fewer objects than it embraces.
BRUTUS
Anti-federalist No.
26
THE USE OF COERCION BY
THE NEW GOVERNMENT (PART 1)
"A FARMER AND PLANTER" had his work printed in The
Maryland Journal, and Baltimore Advertiser, April 1, 1788.
The time is nearly at hand, when you are called upon to
render up that glorious liberty you obtained, by resisting the tyranny and
oppression of George the Third, King of England, and his ministers. The
first Monday in April is the day appointed by our assembly, for you to meet
and choose delegates in each county, to take into consideration the new
Federal Government, and either adopt or refuse it. Let me entreat you, my
fellows, to consider well what you are about. Read the said constitution,
and consider it well before you act. I have done so, and can find that we
are to receive but little good, and a great deal of evil.
Aristocracy,
or government in the hands of a very few nobles, or RICH MEN, is therein
concealed in the most artful wrote plan that ever was formed to entrap a
free people. The contrivers of it have so completely entrapped you, and laid
their plans so sure and secretly, that they have only left you to do one of
two things-that is either to receive or refuse it. And in order to bring you
into their snare, you may daily read new pieces published in the newspapers,
in favor of this new government; and should a writer dare to publish any
piece against it, he is immediately abused and vilified.
Look round you and observe well the RICH MEN, who are to
be your only rulers, lords and masters in future! Are they not all for it?
Yes! Ought not this to put you on your guard? Does not riches beget power,
and power, oppression and tyranny ?
I am told that four of the
richest men in Ann-Arundel County [Maryland], have offered themselves
candidates to serve in the convention, who are all in favor of the new
Federal Government. Let me beg of you to reflect a moment on the danger you
run. If you choose these men,
or others like them, they certainly will do everything in their power to
adopt the new government. Should they succeed, your liberty is gone
forever; and you will then be nothing better than a strong ass
crouching down between two burdens. The new form of government gives
Congress liberty at any time, by their laws, to alter the state laws, and
the time, places and manner of holding elections for
representatives. By this clause they may command, by their
laws, the people of Maryland to go to Georgia, and the people of Georgia to
go to Boston, to choose their representatives. Congress, or our
future lords and masters, are to have power to lay and collect taxes,
duties, imposts, and excises. Excise is
a new thing in America, and few country farmers and planters know the
meaning of it. But it is not so in Old England, where I have seen the
effects of it, and felt the smart. It is there a duty, or tax, laid upon
almost every necessary of life and convenience, and a great number of other
articles. The excise on salt in the year 1762, to the best
of my recollection, in England, was 4s. sterling per bushel, for all that
was made use of in families; and the price of salt per bushel about 6s.
sterling, and the excise 4s.6d. on every gallon of rum made use of. If a
private family make their own soap, candles, beer, cider, etc., they pay an
excise duty on them. And if they neglect calling in an excise officer at the
time of making these things, they are liable to grievous fines and
forfeitures, besides a long train of evils and inconveniences attending this
detestable excise-to enumerate particularly would fill a volume. The excise
officers have power to enter your houses at all times, by night or day, and
if you refuse them entrance, they can, under pretense of searching for
exciseable goods, that the duty has not been paid on, break open your doors,
chests, trunks, desks, boxes, and rummage your houses from bottom to top.
Nay, they often search the clothes, petticoats and pockets of ladies or
gentlemen (particularly when they are coming from on board an East-India
ship), and if they find any the least article that you cannot prove the duty
to be paid on, seize it and carry it away with them; who are the very scum
and refuse of mankind, who value not their oaths, and will break them for a
shilling. This is their true character in England, and I speak from
experience, for I have had the opportunity of putting their virtue to the
test, and saw two of them break their oath for one guinea, and a third for
one shilling's worth of punch. What do you think of a law to let loose such
a set of vile officers among you! Do you expect the Congress excise-officers
will be any better-if God, in his anger, should think it proper to punish us
for our ignorance, and sins of ingratitude to him, after carrying us through
the late war, and giving us liberty, and now so tamely to give it up by
adopting this aristocratical government ?
Representatives and direct taxes shall be
apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union
according to their respective numbers. This seems to imply, that we shall be
taxed by the poll again, which is contrary to our Bill of Rights.
But it is possible that the rich men, who are
the great land holders, will tax us in this manner, which will exempt them
from paying assessments on their great bodies of land in the old and new
parts of the United States; many of them having but few taxable by the poll.
Our great Lords and Masters are to lay taxes, raise and support armies,
provide a navy, and may appropriate money for two years, call forth the
militia to execute their laws, suppress insurrections, and the President is
to have the command of the militia. Now, my countrymen, I would ask you, why
are all these things directed and put into their power ? Why, I
conceive, they are to keep you in a good humor; and if you should, at any
time, think you are imposed upon by Congress and your great Lords and
Masters, and refuse or delay to pay your taxes, or do anything that they
shall think proper to order you to do, they can, and I have not a doubt but
they will, send the militia of Pennsylvania, Boston, or any other state or
place, to cut your throats, ravage and destroy your plantations, drive away
your cattle and horses, abuse your wives, kill your infants, and ravish your
daughters, and live in free quarters, until you get into a good humor, and
pay all that they may think proper to ask of you, and you become good and
faithful servants and slaves. (1)
Such things have been done, and I have no doubt will be done
again, if you consent to the adoption of this new Federal
Government. You labored under
many hardships while the British tyrannized over you! You fought, conquered
and gained your liberty - then keep it, I pray you, as a precious jewel.
Trust it not out of your own hands; be assured, if you do, you will never
more regain it. The train is laid, the match is on fire, and
they only wait for yourselves to put it to the
train, to blow up all your liberty and commonwealth governments, and
introduce aristocracy and monarchy, and despotism will follow of course in a
few years. Four-years President will be in time a King for life; and after
him, his son, or he that has the greatest power among them, will be King
also. View your danger, and find out good men to represent you in
convention-men of your own profession and station in life; men who will not
adopt this destructive and diabolical form of a federal government. There
are many among you that will not be led by the nose by rich men, and would
scorn a bribe. Rich men can live easy under any government, be it ever so
tyrannical. They come in for a great share of the tyranny, because they are
the ministers of tyrants, and always engross the places of honor and profit,
while the greater part of the common people are led by the nose, and played
about by these very men, for the destruction of themselves and their
class.
Be
wise, be virtuous, and catch the precious moment as it passes, to refuse
this newfangled federal government, and extricate yourselves and posterity
from tyranny, oppression, aristocratical or monarchical government. . .
.
A FARMER AND PLANTER
(1) See the history of the confederate
Grecian states-also the history of England, for the massacre of the people
in the valley of Glenco, in the time of William the Third. [Note by "A
Farmer and Planter".]
Anti-federalist No. 27
THE USE OF COERCION BY THE NEW
GOVERNMENT (PART 2)
"JOHN HUMBLE's," following piece was published in
the Independent Gazetteer, October 29, 1787.
The humble address of the low-born of the united
States of America, to their fellow slaves scattered throughout the
world-greeting:
Whereas it hath been represented unto us that a most
dreadful disease hath for these five years last past infected, preyed upon
and almost ruined the government and people of this our country; and of this
malady we ourselves have had perfect demonstration, not mentally, but
bodily, through every one of the five senses. For although our sensations in
regard to the mind be not just so nice as those of the well born, yet our
feeling, through the medium of the plow, the hoe and the grubbing ax, is as
acute as any nobleman's in the world. And, whereas, a number of skillful
physicians having met together at Philadelphia last summer, for the purpose
of exploring, and, if possible, removing the cause of this direful disease,
have, through the assistance of John Adams, Esq., in the profundity of their
great political knowledge, found out and discovered that nothing but a new
government, consisting of three different branches, namely, king, lords, and
commons or, in the American language, President, Senate and
Representatives-can save this, our country, from inevitable destruction.
And, whereas, it has been reported that several of our low-born brethren
have had the horrid audacity to think for themselves in regard to this new
system of government, and, dreadful thought! have wickedly begun to doubt
concerning the perfection of this evangelical constitution, which our
political doctors have declared to be a panacea, which (by inspiration) they
know will infallibly heal every distemper in the confederation, and finally
terminate in the salvation of America.
Now we the low born, that is, all the people of the united
States, except 600 thereabouts, well born, do by this our humble address,
declare and most solemnly engage, that we will allow and admit the said 600
well born, immediately to establish and confirm this most noble, most
excellent and truly divine constitution. And we further declare that without
any equivocation or mental reservation whatever we will support and maintain
the same according to the best of our power, and after the manner and custom
of all other slaves in foreign countries, namely by the sweat and toil of
our body. Nor will we at any future period of time ever attempt to complain
of this our royal government, let the consequences be what they
may.
And although it appears to us that a standing army,
composed of the purgings of the jails of Great Britain, Ireland and Germany,
shall be employed in collecting the revenues of this our king and
government, yet, we again in the most solemn manner declare, that we will
abide by our present determination of non- resistance and passive
obedience-so that we shall not dare to molest or disturb those military
gentlemen in the service of our royal government. And (which is not
improbable) should any one of those soldiers when employed on duty in
collecting the taxes, strike off the arm (with his sword) of one of our
fellow slaves, we will conceive our case remarkably fortunate if he leaves
the other arm on. And moreover, because we are aware that many of our fellow
slaves shall be unable to pay their taxes, and this incapacity of theirs is
a just cause of impeachment of treason; wherefore in such cases we will use
our utmost endeavors, in conjunction with the standing army, to bring such
atrocious offenders before our federal judges, who shall have power, without
jury or trial, to order the said miscreants for immediate execution; nor
will we think their sentence severe unless after being hanged they are also
to be both beheaded and quartered.
And finally we shall henceforth and
forever leave all power, authority and dominion over our persons and
properties in the hands of the well born, who were designed by Providence to
govern. And in regard to the liberty of the press, we renounce all claim to
it forever more, Amen; and we shall in future be perfectly contented if our
tongues be left us to lick the feet of our well born masters.
Done on behalf of three millions of low-born American
slaves.
JOHN HUMBLE, Secretary
Anti-federalist No.
28
THE USE OF COERCION BY THE NEW
GOVERNMENT (PART III)
This essay was published in either the (Philadelphia)
Freeman's Journal; or, The North-American Intelligencer, January 16,
1788.
The Congress under the new Constitution have the power "of
organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and of governing them when
in the service of the United States, giving to the separate States the
appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Let us inquire why they
have assumed this great power. Was it to strengthen the power which is now
lodged in your hands, and relying upon you and you solely for aid and
support to the civil power in the execution of all the laws of the new
Congress? Is this probable? Does the complexion of this new plan countenance
such a supposition? When they unprecedently claim the power of raising and
supporting armies, do they tell you for what purposes they are to be raised?
How they are to be employed? How many they are to consist of, and where to
be stationed? Is this power fettered with any one of those restrictions,
which will show they depend upon the militia, and not upon this infernal
engine of oppression to execute their civil laws? The nature of the demand
in itself contradicts such a supposition, and forces you to believe that it
is for none of these causes-but rather for the purpose of consolidating and
finally destroying your strength, as your respective governments are to be
destroyed. They well know the impolicy of putting or keeping arms in the
hands of a nervous people, at a distance from the seat of a government, upon
whom they mean to exercise the powers granted in that government. They have
no idea of calling upon or trusting to the party aggrieved to support and
enforce their own grievances, (notwithstanding they may select and subject
them to as strict subordination as regular troops) unless they have a
standing army to back and compel the execution of their orders. It is
asserted by the most respectable writers upon government, that a well
regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country, have ever been
considered as the bulwark of a free people. Tyrants have never placed any
confidence on a militia composed of freemen. Experience has taught them that
a standing body of regular forces, whenever they can be completely
introduced, are always efficacious in enforcing their edicts, however
arbitrary; and slaves by profession themselves, are "nothing loth" to break
down the barriers of freedom with a gout. No, my fellow citizens, this
plainly shows they do not mean to depend upon the citizens of the States
alone to enforce their powers. They mean to lean upon something more
substantial and summary. They have left the appointment of officers in the
breasts of the several States; but this appears to me an insult rather than
a privilege, for what avails this right if they at their pleasure may arm or
disarm all or any part of the freemen of the United States, so that when
their army is sufficiently numerous, they may put it out of the power of the
freemen militia of America to assert and defend their liberties, however
they might be encroached upon by Congress. Does any, after reading this
provision for a regular standing army, suppose that they intended to apply
to the militia in all cases, and to pay particular attention to making them
the bulwark of this continent? And would they not be equal to such an
undertaking? Are they not abundantly able to give security and stability to
your government as long as it is free? Are they not the only proper persons
to do it? Are they not the most respectable body of yeomanry in that
character upon earth? Have they not been engaged in some of the most
brilliant actions in America, and more than once decided the fate of
princes? In short, do they not preclude the necessity of any standing army
whatsoever, unless in case of invasion? And in that case it would be time
enough to raise them, for no free government under heaven, with a well
disciplined militia, was ever yet subdued by mercenary troops.
The advocates at the present day, for a standing army in
the new Congress, pretend it is necessary for the respectability of
government. I defy them to produce an instance in any country, in the Old or
New World, where they have not finally done away the liberties of the
people. Every writer upon government-- Locke, Sidney, Hampden, and a list of
others have uniformly asserted, that standing armies are a solecism in any
government; that no nation ever supported them, that did not resort to, rely
upon, and finally become a prey to them. No western historians have yet been
hardy enough to advance principles that look a different way. What
historians have asserted, all the Grecian republics have verified. They are
brought up to obedience and unconditional submission; with arms in their
bands, they are taught to feel the weight of rigid discipline; they are
excluded from the enjoyments which liberty gives to its votaries; they, in
consequence, hate and envy the rest of the community in which they are
placed, and indulge a malignant pleasure in destroying those privileges to
which they never can be admitted. "Without a standing army," (says the
Marquis of Beccaria), "in every society there is an effort constantly
tending to confer on one part the height and to reduce the other to the
extreme of weakness, and this is of itself sufficient to employ the people's
attention." There is no instance of any government being reduced to a
confirmed tyranny without military oppression. And the first policy of
tyrants has been to annihilate all other means of national activity and
defense, when they feared opposition, and to rely solely upon standing
troops. Repeated were the trials, before the sovereigns of Europe dared to
introduce them upon any pretext whatever; and the whole record of the
transactions of mankind cannot furnish an instance, (unless the proposed
constitution may be called part of that record) where the motives which
caused that establishment were not completely disguised. Peisistratus in
Greece, and Dionysius in Syracuse, Charles in France, and Henry in England,
all cloaked their villainous intentions under an idea of raising a small
body as a guard for their persons; and Spain could not succeed in the same
nefarious plan, until thro' the influence of an ambitious priest (who have
in all countries and in all ages, even at this day, encouraged and preached
up arbitrary power) they obtained it. "Caesar, who first attacked the
commonwealth with mines, very soon opened his batteries." Notwithstanding
all these objections to this engine of oppression, which are made by the
most experienced men, and confirmed by every country where the rays of
freedom ever extended-yet in America, which has hitherto been her favorite
abode; in this civilized territory, where property is so valuable, and men
are found with feelings that win not patiently submit to arbitrary control;
in this western region, where, my fellow countrymen, it is confessedly
proper that you should associate and dwell in society from choice and
reflection, and not be kept together by force and fear-you are modestly
requested to engraft into the component parts of your constitution a
Standing Army, without any qualifying restraints whatever, certainly to
exist somewhere in the bowels of your country in time of peace. It is very
true that Lawyer [James] Wilson-member of the Federal Convention, and who we
may suppose breathes in some measure the spirit of that body-tells you it is
for the purpose of forming cantonments upon your frontiers, and for the
dignity and safety of your country, as it respects foreign nations. No man
that loves his country could object to their being raised for the first of
these causes, but for the last it cannot be necessary. God has so separated
us by an extensive ocean from the rest of mankind; he hath so liberally
endowed us with privileges, and so abundantly taught us to esteem them
precious, it would be impossible while we retain our integrity, and advert
to first principles, for any nation whatever to subdue us. We have succeeded
in our opposition to the most powerful people upon the globe; and the wound
that America received in the struggle, where is it? As speedily healed as
the track in the ocean is buried by the succeeding wave. It has scarcely
stopped her progress, and our private dissensions only, at this moment,
tarnish the lustre of the most illustrious infant nation under
heaven.
You cannot help suspecting this gentleman [James Wilson],
when he goes on to tell you "that standing armies in time of peace have
always been a topic of popular declamation, but Europe hath found them
necessary to maintain the appearance of strength in a season of the most
profound tranquility." This shows you his opinion-and that he, as one of the
Convention, was for unequivocally establishing them in time of peace; and to
object to them, is a mere popular declamation. But I will not, my
countrymen-I cannot believe you to be of the same sentiment. Where is the
standing army in the world that, like the musket they make use of, hath been
in time of peace brightened and burnished for the sake only of maintaining
an appearance of strength, without being put to a different use-without
having had a pernicious influence upon the morals, the habits, and the
sentiments of society, and finally, taking a chief part in executing its
laws ?. . .
If tyranny is at all feared, the tyranny of the many is to
be guarded against MORE than that of a single person. The Athenians found by
sad experience, that 30 tyrants were thirty times worse than one. A bad
aristocracy is thirty times worse than a bad monarchy, allowing each to have
a standing army as unrestricted as in the proposed constitution.
If the people are not in general disposed to execute the
powers of government, it is time to suspect there is something wrong in that
government; and rather than employ a standing army, they had better have
another. For, in my humble opinion, it is yet much too early to set it down
for a fact, that mankind cannot be governed but by force.
Anti-federalist No.
29
OBJECTIONS TO NATIONAL
CONTROL OF THE MILITIA
"A DEMOCRATIC FEDERALIST," appeared in "the Pennsylvania
Packet," October 23, 1787; following #29, #30 is excerpted from THE ADDRESS
AND REASONS OF DISSENT OF THE MINORITY OF THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS, December 12, 1787.
Hume, an aristocratical writer, has candidly confessed
that an army is a moral distemper in a government, of which it must at last
inevitably perish (2d Burgh, 349); and the Earl of Oxford (Oxford the friend
of France and the Pretender, the attainted Oxford), said in the British
parliament, in a speech on the mutiny bill, that, "While he had breath he
would speak for the liberties of his country, and against courts martial and
a standing army in peace, as dangerous to the Constitution." (Ibid., page
455.) Such were the speeches even of the enemies of liberty when Britain had
yet a right to be called free. But, says Mr. [James] Wilson, "It is
necessary to maintain the appearance of strength even in times of the most
profound tranquillity." And what is this more than a threadbare hackneyed
argument, which has been answered over and over in different ages, and does
not deserve even the smallest consideration? Had we a standing army when the
British invaded our peaceful shores? Was it a standing army that gained the
battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill, and took the ill-fated Burgoyne? Is
not a well- regulated militia sufficient for every purpose of internal
defense? And which of you, my fellow citizens, is afraid of any invasion
from foreign powers that our brave militia would not be able immediately to
repel ?
Mr. Wilson says, that he does not know of any nation in
the world which has not found it necessary to maintain the appearance of
strength in a season of the most profound tranquillity. If by this equivocal
assertion he has meant to say that there is no nation in the world without a
standing army in time of peace, he has been mistaken. I need only adduce the
example of Switzerland, which, like us, is a republic, whose thirteen
cantons, like our thirteen States, are under a federal government, and which
besides is surrounded by the most powerful nations in Europe, all jealous of
its liberty and prosperity. And yet that nation has preserved its freedom
for many ages, with the sole help of a militia, and has never been known to
have a standing army, except when in actual war. Why should we not follow so
glorious an example; and are we less able to defend our liberty without an
army, than that brave but small nation which, with its militia alone has
hitherto defied all Europe ?
A DEMOCRATIC FEDERALIST
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The framers of this constitution appear to have been . . .
sensible that no dependence could be placed on the people for their support;
but on the contrary, that the government must be executed by force. They
have therefore made a provision for this purpose in a permanent standing
army and a militia that may be objected to as strict discipline and
government.
A standing army in the hands of a government placed
so independent of the people, may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the
public liberties; it may be employed to enforce the collection of the most
oppressive taxes; and to carry into execution the most arbitrary measures.
An ambitious man who may have the army at his devotion, may step up into the
throne, and seize upon absolute power.
The absolute unqualified command that Congress have
over the militia may be made instrumental to the destruction of all liberty
both public and private; whether of a personal, civil or religious nature.
First, the personal liberty of
every man, probably from sixteen to sixty years of age, may be destroyed by
the power Congress have in organizing and governing of the
militia. As militia they may be subjected to fines to any
amount, levied in a military manner; they may be subjected to corporal
punishments of the most disgraceful and humiliating kind; and to death
itself, by the sentence of a court martial. To this our young men
will be more immediately subjected, as a select militia, composed of them,
will best answer the purposes of government.
Secondly, the rights of conscience may be violated, as
there is no exemption of those persons who are conscientiously scrupulous of
bearing arms. These compose a respectable proportion of the community in the
State [Pennsylvania]. This is the more remarkable, because even when the
distresses of the late war and the evident disaffection of many citizens of
that description inflamed our passions, and when every person who was
obliged to risk his own life must have been exasperated against such as on
any account kept back from the common danger, yet even then, when outrage
and violence might have been expected, the rights of conscience were held
sacred.
At this momentous crisis, the framers of our State
Constitution made the most express and decided declaration and stipulations
in favor of the rights of conscience; but now, when no necessity exists,
those dearest rights of men are left insecure.
Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the
militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an
arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny.
The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to
quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided
by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their
liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their
minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and
revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient
instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated
vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last
efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their
fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only
without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is
calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed
accordingly.
As this government will not enjoy the confidence
of the people, but be executed by force, it will
be a very expensive and burdensome government. The standing army must be numerous, and as a further support,
it wilt be the policy of this government to multiply officers in every
department; judges, collectors, tax-gatherers, excisemen and the whole host
of revenue officers, will swarm over the land, devouring the hard earnings
of the industrious like the locusts of old, impoverishing and desolating all
before them. . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anti-federalist No.
30-31
A VIRGINIA
ANTIFEDERALIST ON THE ISSUE OF
TAXATION
From The Freeman's Journal; or, The North-American
Intelligencer, October 31, 1787.
. . . . It has been the language, since the peace, of the
most virtuous and discerning men in America, that the powers vested in
Congress were inadequate to the procuring of the benefits that should result
from the union. It was found that our national character was sinking in the
opinion of foreign nations, and that the selfish views of some of the states
were likely to become the source of dangerous jealousy. The requisitions of
Congress were set at naught; the government, that represented the union, had
not a shilling in its treasury to enable it to pay off the federal debts,
nor had it any method within its power to alter its situation. It could make
treaties of commerce, but could not enforce the observance of them; and it
was felt that we were suffering from the restrictions of foreign nations,
who seeing the want of energy in our federal constitution, and the
unlikelihood of cooperation in thirteen separate legislatures, had shackled
our commerce, without any dread of recrimination on our part. To obviate
these grievances, it was I believe the general opinion, that new powers
should be vested in Congress to enable it, in the amplest manner, to
regulate the commerce, to lay and collect duties on the imports of the
United States. Delegates were appointed by most of them, for those purposes,
to a convention to be held at Annapolis in the September before last. A few
of them met, and without waiting for the others, who were coming on, they
dissolved the convention-after resolving among themselves, that the powers
vested in them were not sufficiently extensive; and that they would apply to
the legislatures of the several states, which they represented, to appoint
members to another convention, with powers to new model the federal
constitution. This, indeed, it has now done in the most unequivocal manner;
nor has it stopped here, for it has fairly annihilated the constitution of
each individual state. It has proposed to you a high prerogative government,
which, like Aaron's serpent, is to swallow up the rest. This is what the
thinking people in America were apprehensive of.
They knew how difficult
it is to hit the golden mean, how natural the transition is from one extreme
to another-from anarchy to tyranny, from the inconvenient laxity of thirteen
separate governments to the too sharp and grinding one, before which our
sovereignty, as a state, was to vanish.
In Art. I, Sect. 8, of the proposed constitution, it is
said, "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts,
and excises." Are you then, Virginians, about to abandon your country to the
depredations of excisemen, and the pressure of excise laws ? Did it ever
enter the mind of any one of you, that you could live to see the day, that
any other government but the General Assembly of Virginia should have power
of direct taxation in this state ? How few of you ever
expected to see excise laws, those instruments of tyranny, in force in your
country ? But who could imagine, that any man but a
Virginian, were they found to be necessary, would ever have a voice towards
enacting them ? That any tribunal, but the courts of Virginia, would be
allowed to take cognizance of disputes between her citizens and their tax
gatherers and excisemen? And that, if ever it should be found necessary to
curse this land with these hateful excisemen, any one, but a fellow citizen,
should be entrusted with that office ?
For my part, I cannot discover the necessity there was of
allowing Congress to subject us to excise laws, unless - that considering
the extensiveness of the single republic into which this constitution would
collect all the others, and the well known difficulty of governing large
republics with harmony and ease - it was thought expedient to bit our mouths
with massive curbs, to break us, bridled with excise laws and managed by
excisemen, into an uniform, sober pace, and thus, gradually, tame the
troublesome mettle of freemen. This necessity could not, surely, arise from
the desire of furnishing Congress with a sufficient revenue to enable it to
exercise the prerogatives which every friend to America would wish to see
vested in it. As it would, by unanimous consent, have the management of the
impost, it could increase it to any amount, and this would fall sufficiently
uniform on every one, according to his ability. Or, were this not found
sufficient, could not the deficiency be made up by requisitions to the
states ? Could it not have been made an article of the federal
constitution, that, if any of them refused their quota, Congress may be
allowed to make it up by an increase of the impost on that particular state
so refusing ? This would, surely, be a sufficient security to
Congress, that their requisitions would be punctually complied
with.
In any dispute between you and the revenue officers and
excisemen of Congress, it is true that it is provided the trial shall be in
the first instance within the state, though before a federal tribunal. It is
said in par. 3, sect. 2, art. 3, "The trial of all crimes except in cases of
impeachments shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state
where the crime shall be committed." But what does this avail, when an
appeal will lie against you to the supreme federal court. In the paragraph
preceding the one just now quoted, it is said, "In all cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state
shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
In
all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate
jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such
regulations as the Congress shall make."
But where is this Supreme Court
to sit ? Will it not be where Congress shall fix its residence ?
Thither then you will be carried for trial. Who are to be your
jury? Is there any provision made that you shall have a Venire from your
county, or even from your state, as they please to call it ? Not You are to
be tried within the territory of Congress, and Congress itself is to be a
party. You are to be deprived of the benefit of a jury from your vicinage,
that boast and birthright of a freeman.
Should it not at least have been provided, that those
revenue officers and excisemen - against whom free governments have always
justly entertained a jealousy-should be citizens of the state ?
Was it
inadmissible that they should be endued with the bowels of fellow citizens ?
Are we not to expect that New England will now send us revenue officers
instead of onions and apples? When you observe that the few places already
under Congress in this state are in the hands of strangers, you will own
that my suspicion is not without some foundation. And if the first
cause of it be required, those who have served in Congress can tell you that
the New England delegates to that assembly have always stood by each other,
and have formed a firm phalanx, which the southern delegates have not; that,
on the contrary, the maneuvers of the former have been commonly engaged,
with success, in dividing the latter against each
other.
CATO UTICENSIS
Anti-federalist No.
32
FEDERAL TAXATION
AND THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED
POWERS (PART I)
A powerful rebuttal of Hamilton, the logic of Brutus can
be found in a supreme Court decision of 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland. Taken
from "Brutus" fifth essay, The New-York Journal of December 13,
1787.
This constitution considers the people of
the several states as one body corporate, and is intended as an original
compact; it will therefore dissolve all contracts which may be inconsistent
with it. This not only results from its nature, but is
expressly declared in the 6th article of it. The design of the constitution
is expressed in the preamble, to be, "in order to form a more
perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity." These are the ends
this government is to accomplish, and for which it is invested with certain
powers; among these is the power "to make all laws which are necessary and
proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers
vested by this constitution in the government of the united States, or in
any department or officer thereof." It is a rule in construing a law to
consider the objects the legislature had in view in passing it, and to give
it such an explanation as to promote their intention. The same rule will
apply in explaining a constitution. The great objects then are declared in
this preamble in general and indefinite terms to be to provide for the
common welfare, and an express power being vested in the legislature to make
all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all
the powers vested in the general government. The inference is natural that
the legislature will have an authority to make all laws which they shall judge necessary for the common
safety, and to promote the general welfare. This amounts to a power to make
laws at discretion. No terms can be found more indefinite than
these, and it is obvious, that the legislature alone must judge what laws
are proper and necessary for the purpose. It may be said, that this
way of explaining the constitution, is torturing and making it speak
what it never intended. This is far from my intention, and I shall
not even insist upon this implied power, but join issue with those who say
we are to collect the idea of the powers given from the express words of the
clauses granting them; and it will not be difficult to show that the same
authority is expressly given which is supposed to be implied in the
foregoing paragraphs.
In the lst article, 8th section, it is declared,
"that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts,
and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense, and
general welfare of the United States." In the preamble, the intent of the
constitution, among other things, is declared to be to provide for the
common defense, and promote the general welfare, and in this clause the
power is in express words given to Congress "to provide for the common
defense, and general welfare." And in the last paragraph of the same section
there is an express authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into execution this power. It is therefore evident, that
the legislature under this constitution may pass any law which they may
think proper. It is true the 9th section restrains their power with respect
to certain subjects. But these restrictions are very limited, some of them
improper, some unimportant, and others not easily understood, as I shall
hereafter show. It has been urged that the meaning I give to this
part of the constitution is not the true one, that the intent of it is to
confer on the legislature the power to lay and collect taxes, etc., in order
to provide for the common defense and general welfare. To this I would
reply, that the meaning and intent of the constitution is to be collected
from the words of it, and I submit to the public, whether the construction I
have given it is not the most natural and easy. But admitting the contrary
opinion to prevail, I shall nevertheless, be able to show, that the same
powers are substantially vested in the general government, by several other
articles in the constitution. It invests the legislature with authority to
lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, in order to provide for
the common defense, and promote the general welfare, and to pass all laws
which may be necessary and proper for carrying this power into effect. To
comprehend the extent of this authority, it will be requisite to
examine
1st. What is included in this power
to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.
2nd. What is implied in the authority, to
pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying this power
into execution.
3rd. What limitation, if any, is set to
the exercise of this power by the constitution.
First.
To detail the particulars comprehended in the
general terms, taxes, duties, imposts and excises, would require a volume,
instead of a single piece in a newspaper. Indeed it would be a task far
beyond my ability, and to which no one can be competent, unless possessed of
a mind capable of comprehending every possible source of revenue; for they
extend to every possible way of raising money, whether by direct or indirect
taxation. Under this clause may be imposed a poll tax, a land tax, a tax on
houses and buildings, on windows and fireplaces, on cattle and on all kinds
of personal property. It extends to duties on all kinds of goods to any
amount, to tonnage and poundage on vessels, to duties on written
instruments, newspapers, almanacks, and books. It comprehends an excise on
all kinds of liquors, spirits, wines, cider, beer, etc., and indeed takes in
duty or excise on every necessary or conveniency of life, whether of foreign
or home growth or manufactory. In short, we can have
no conception of any way in which a government can raise money from the
people, but what is included in one or other of these general
terms. We may say then that this clause commits to the hands of the
general legislature every conceivable source of revenue within the united
States, Not only are these terms very comprehensive, and extend to a vast
number of objects, but the power to lay and collect has great latitude; it
will lead to the passing a vast number of laws, which may affect the
personal rights of the citizens of the states, expose their property to
fines and confiscation, and put their lives in jeopardy. It opens a
door to the
appointment of a swarm of revenue and
excise collectors to prey upon the honest and industrious part of the
community, [and] eat up their substance. . . .
Second. We will next inquire into what is
implied in the authority to pass all laws which shall be necessary and
proper to carry this power into execution.
It is, perhaps, utterly impossible fully to define
this power. The authority granted in the first clause can only be
understood in its full extent, by descending to all the particular cases in
which a revenue can be raised; the number and variety of these cases are so
endless, and as it were infinite, that no man living has, as yet, been able
to reckon them up. The greatest geniuses in the world have been for ages
employed in the research, and when mankind had supposed that the subject was
exhausted they have been astonished with the refined improvements that have
been made in modern times ' and especially in the English nation on the
subject. If then the objects of this power cannot be comprehended, how is it
possible to understand the extent of that power which can pass all laws
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying it into executions It is
truly incomprehensible. A case cannot be conceived of, which is not included
in this power. It is well known that the subject of revenue is the most
difficult and extensive in the science of government. It requires the
greatest talents of a statesman, and the most numerous and exact provisions
of the legislature. The command of the revenues 'Of a state gives the
command of every thing in it. He that has the purse will have the sword, and
they that have both, have everything; so that the legislature having every
source from which money can be drawn under their direction, with a right to
make all laws necessary and proper for drawing forth all the resource of the
country, would have, in fact, all power.
Were I to enter into the detail, it would be easy to
show how this power in its operation, would totally destroy all the powers
of the individual states. But this is not necessary for those who will think
for themselves, and it will be useless to such as take things upon trust;
nothing will awaken them to reflection, until the iron hand of oppression
compel them to it.
I shall only remark, that this power, given to the federal
legislature, directly annihilates all the powers of the state legislatures.
There cannot be a greater solecism in politics than to talk of power in a
government, without the command of any revenue. It is as absurd as to talk
of an animal without blood, or the subsistence of one without food. Now the
general government having in their control every possible source of revenue,
and authority to pass any law they may deem necessary to draw them forth, or
to facilitate their collection, no source of revenue is therefore left in
the hands 'Of any state. Should any state attempt to raise money by law, the
general government may repeal or arrest it in the execution, for all their
laws will be the supreme law of the land. If then any one can be weak enough
to believe that a government can exist without having the authority to raise
money to pay a door-keeper to their assembly, he may believe that the state
government can exist, should this new constitution take place.
It is agreed by most of the
advocates of this new system, that the government which is proper for the
United States should be a confederated one; that the respective states ought
to retain a portion of their sovereignty, and that they should preserve not
only the forms of their legislatures, but also the power to conduct certain
internal concerns. How far the powers to be retained by the
states are to extend, is the question; we need not spend much time on this
subject, as it respects this constitution, for a government without power to
raise money is one only in name. It is clear that the legislatures of the
respective states must be altogether dependent on the will of the general
legislature, for the means of supporting their government. The legislature of the United States will have a right to
exhaust every source of revenue in every state, and to annul all laws of the
states which may stand in the way of effecting it; unless therefore we can suppose the state governments can
exist without money to support the officers who execute them, we must
conclude they will exist no longer than the general legislatures choose they
should. Indeed the idea of any government existing, in any
respect, as an independent one, without any means of support in their own
hands, is an absurdity. If therefore, this constitution has in view, what
many of its framers and advocates say it has, to secure and guarantee to the
separate states the exercise of certain powers of government, it certainly
ought to have left in their hands some sources of revenue. It should have
marked the line in which the general government should have raised money,
and set bounds over which they should not pass, leaving to
the separate states other means to raise supplies for the support of their
governments, and to discharge their respective debts. To this it is
objected, that the general government ought to have power competent to the
purposes of the union; they are to provide for the common defense, to pay
the debts of the United States, support foreign ministers, and the civil
establishment of the union, and to do these they ought to have authority to
raise money adequate to the purpose.
On this I observe, that the state
governments have also contracted debts; they require money to support their
civil officers; . . . if they give to the general government a power to
raise money in every way in which it can possibly be raised, with . . . a
control over the state legislatures as to prohibit them, whenever the
general legislature may think proper, from raising any money, (the states
will fail]. It is again objected that it is very difficult, if not
impossible, to draw the line of distinction between the powers of the
general and state governments on this subject. The first, it is said, must
have the power to raise the money necessary for the purposes of the union;
if they are limited to certain objects the revenue may fall short of a
sufficiency for the public exigencies; they must therefore have
discretionary power. The line may be easily and accurately drawn between the
powers of the two governments on this head. The distinction between external
and internal taxes, is not a novel one in this country. It is a plain one,
and easily understood. The first includes impost duties on all imported
goods; this species of taxes it is proper should be laid by the general
government; many reasons might be urged to show that no danger is to be
apprehended from their exercise of it. They may be collected in few places,
and from few hands with certainty and expedition. But few officers are
necessary to be employed in collecting them, and there is no danger of
oppression in laying them, because if they are laid higher than trade will
bear, the merchants will cease importing, or smuggle their goods. We have
therefore sufficient security, arising from the nature of the thing, against
burdensome, and intolerable impositions from this kind of tax. The case is
far otherwise with regard to direct taxes; these include poll taxes, land
taxes, excises, duties on written instruments, on everything we eat, drink,
or wear; they take hold of every species of property, and come home to every
man's house and pocket. These are often so oppressive, as to grind the face
of the poor, and render the lives of the common people a burden to them. The
great and only security the people can have against oppression from this
kind of taxes, must rest in their representatives. If they are sufficiently
numerous to be well informed of the circumstances, . . . and have a proper
regard for the people, they will be secure. The general legislature, as I
have shown in a former paper, will not be thus qualified,' and therefore, on
this account, ought not to exercise the power of direct taxation. If the
power of laying imposts will not be sufficient, some other specific mode of
raising a revenue should have been assigned the general government; many may
be suggested in which their power may be accurately defined and limited, and
it would be much better to give them authority to lay and collect a duty on
exports, not to exceed a certain rate per cent, than to have surrendered
every kind of resource that the country has, to the complete abolition of
the state governments, and which will introduce such an infinite number of
laws and ordinances, fines and penalties, courts, and judges, collectors,
and excisemen, that when a man can number them, he may enumerate the stars
of Heaven.
BRUTUS
Anti-federalist No.
33
FEDERAL TAXATION AND THE
DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED
POWERS (PART II)
The Federalist writers apparently never responded to
"BRUTUS." The following "Brutus" article was extracted from his sixth essay,
The New-York Journal of December 27, 1787.
.... The general government is to be vested with authority
to levy and collect taxes, duties, and excises; the separate states have
also power to impose taxes, duties, and excises, except that they cannot lay
duties on exports and imports without the consent of Congress.
Here then
the two governments have concurrent jurisdiction; both may lay impositions
of this kind. But then the general government have superadded to this power,
authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
the foregoing power into execution.
Suppose then that both governments
should lay taxes, duties, and excises, and it should fall so heavy on the
people that they would be unable, or be so burdensome that they would refuse
to pay them both would it not be necessary that the general legislature
should suspend the collection of the state tax? It certainly would. For, if
the people could not, or would not pay both, they must be discharged from
the tax to the state, or the tax to the general government could not be
collected. The conclusion therefore is inevitable, that the respective state
governments will not have the power to raise one shilling in any way, but by
the permission of the Congress. I presume no one will pretend that the
states can exercise legislative authority, or administer justice among their
citizens for any length of time, without being able to raise a sufficiency
to pay those who administer their governments.
If this be true, and if the states can raise money only by
permission of the general government, it follows that the state governments
will be dependent on the will of the general government for their
existence.
What will render this power in Congress effectual
and sure in its operation is that the government will have complete judicial
and executive authority to carry all their laws into effect, which will be
paramount to the judicial and executive authority of the individual states:
in vain therefore will be all interference of the legislatures, courts, or
magistrates of any of the states on the subject; for they will be
subordinate to the general government, and engaged by oath to support it,
and will be constitutionally bound to submit to their decisions.
The general legislature will be empowered to lay any tax
they choose, to annex any penalties they please to the breach of their
revenue laws; and to appoint as many officers as they may think proper to
collect the taxes. They will have authority to farm the revenues and to vest
the farmer general, with his subalterns, with plenary powers to collect
them, in any way which to them may appear eligible, And the courts of law
which they will be authorized to institute, will have cognizance of every
case arising under the revenue laws, [and] the conduct of all the officers
employed in collecting them; and the officers of these courts will execute
their judgments. There is no way, therefore, of avoiding the destruction of
the state governments, whenever the Congress please to do it, unless the
people rise up, and, with a strong hand, resist and prevent the execution of
constitutional laws. The fear of this will, it is presumed, restrain the
general government for some time, within proper bounds; but it will not be
many years before they will have a revenue, and force, at their command,
which will place them above any apprehensions on that score.
How far the power to lay and collect
duties and excises, may operate to dissolve the state governments, and
oppress the people, it is impossible to say. It would assist
us much in forming a just opinion on this head, to consider the various
objects to which this kind of taxes extend, in European nations, and the
infinity of laws they have passed respecting them. Perhaps, it leisure will
permit, this may be essayed in some future paper.
It was observed in my last number, that the power to
lay and collect duties and excises, would invest the Congress with authority
to impose a duty and excise on every necessary and convenience of life. As
the principal object of the government, in laying a duty or excise, will be,
to raise money, it is obvious, that they will fix on such articles as are of
the most general use and consumption; because, unless great quantities of
the article, on which the duty is laid, is used, the revenue cannot be
considerable. We may therefore presume, that the articles which will be the
object of this species of taxes will be either the real necessaries of life;
or if not those, such as from custom and habit are esteemed so. I will
single out a few of the productions of our own country, which may, and
probably will, be of the number.
Cider is an article that most probably will be one of
those on which an excise will be laid, because it is one, which this country
produces in great abundance, which is in very general use, is consumed in
great quantities, and which may be said not to be a real necessary of life.
An excise on this would raise a large sum of money in the United States. How
would the power, to lay and collect an excise on cider, and to pass all laws
proper and necessary to carry it into execution, operate in its exercise
? It might be necessary, in order to collect the excise on cider, to
grant to one man, in each county, an exclusive right of building and keeping
cider-mills, and oblige him to give bonds and security for payment of the
excise; or, if this was not done, it might be necessary to license the
mills, which are to make this liquor, and to take from them security, to
account for the excise, or, if otherwise, a great number of officers must be
employed, to take account of the cider made, and to collect the duties on
it.
Porter, ale, and all kinds of malt- liquors, are articles
that would probably be subject also to an excise. It would be necessary, in
order to collect such an excise, to regulate the manufactory of these, that
the quantity made might be ascertained, or other wise security could not be
had for the payment of the excise, Every brewery must then be licensed, and
officers appointed, to take account of its product, and to secure the
payment of the duty, or excise, before it is sold. Many other articles might
be named, which would be objects of this species of taxation, but I refrain
from enumerating them. It will probably be said, by those who advocate this
system, that the observations already made on this head, are calculated only
to inflame the minds of the people, with the apprehension of dangers merely
imaginary; that there is not the least reason to apprehend the general
legislature will exercise their power in this manner. To this I would only
say, that these kinds of taxes exist in Great Britain, and are severely
felt. The excise on cider and perry, was imposed in that nation a few years
ago, and it is in the memory of everyone, who read the history of the
transaction, what great tumults it occasioned.
This power, exercised without limitation, will introduce
itself into every corner of the city, and country-it will wait upon the
ladies at their toilet, and will not leave them in any of their domestic
concerns; it will accompany them to the ball, the play, and assembly; it
will go with them when they visit, and will, on all occasions, sit beside
them in their carriages, nor will it desert them even at church; it will
enter the house of every gentleman, watch over his cellar, wait upon his
cook in the kitchen, follow the servants into the parlor, preside over the
table, and note down all he eats or drinks; it will attend him to his
bedchamber, and watch him while he sleeps; it will take cognizance of the
professional man in his office, or his study; it will watch the merchant in
the counting-house, or in his store; it will follow the mechanic to his
shop, and in his work, and will haunt him in his family, and in his bed; it
will be a constant companion of the industrious farmer in all his labor, it
will be with him in the house, and in the field, observe the toil of his
hands, and the sweat of his brow; it will penetrate into the most obscure
cottage; and finally, it will light upon the head of every person in the
united States. To all these different classes of people, and in all these
circumstances, in which it will attend them, the language in which it will
address them, will be GIVE! GIVE! A power that has such latitude, which
reaches every person in the community in every conceivable circumstance, and
lays hold of every species of property they possess, and which has no bounds
set to it, but the discretion of those who exercise it-I say, such a power
must necessarily, from its very nature, swallow up all the power of the
state governments. I shall add but one other observation on this head, which
is this: It appears to me a solecism, for two men, or bodies of men, to have
unlimited power respecting the same object. It contradicts the ... maxim,
which saith, "no man can serve two masters," the one power or the other must
prevail, or else they will destroy each other, and neither of them effect
their purpose. It may be compared to two mechanic powers, acting upon the
same body in opposite directions, the consequence would be, if the powers
were equal, the body would remain in a state of rest, or if the force of the
one was superior to that of the other, the stronger would prevail, and
overcome the resistance of the weaker. But it is said, by some of the
advocates of this system, that "the idea that Congress can levy taxes at
pleasure is false, and the suggestion wholly unsupported. The preamble to
the constitution is declaratory of the purposes of the [our] union, and the
assumption of any power not necessary to establish justice,
etc., provide for the common defense, etc., will
be unconstitutional.
. . . Besides, in the very clause which gives the power of
levying duties and taxes, the purposes to which the money shall be
appropriated are specified, viz., to pay the debts and provide for the
common defense and general welfare."' I would ask those, who reason thus, to
define what ideas are included under the terms, to provide for the common
defense and general welfare? Are these terms definite, and will they be
understood in the same manner, and to apply to the same cases by everyone?
No one will pretend they will. It will then be matter of opinion, what tends
to the general welfare; and the Congress will be the only judges in the
matter. To provide for the general welfare, is an abstract proposition,
which mankind differ in the explanation of, as much as they do on any
political or moral proposition that can be proposed; the most opposite
measures may be pursued by different parties, and both may profess, that
they have in view the general welfare and both sides may be honest in their
professions, or both may have sinister views. Those who advocate this new
constitution declare, they are influenced by a regard to the general
welfare; those who oppose it, declare they are moved by the same principle;
and I have no doubt but a number on both sides are honest in their
professions; and yet nothing is more certain than this, that to adopt this
constitution, and not to adopt it, cannot both of them be promotive of the
general welfare.
It is absurd to say, that the power of Congress is
limited by these general expressions "to provide for the common safety, and
general welfare," as it would be to say, that it would be limited, had the
constitution said they should have power to lay taxes, etc. at will and
pleasure. Were this authority given, it might be said, that under it
the legislature could not do injustice, or pursue any measures, but
such as were calculated to promote the public good, and happiness. For every
man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God and
reason, always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that
the governors of every people should provide for the common defense and
general welfare; every government, therefore, in the world, even the
greatest despot, is limited in the exercise of his power. But however just
this reasoning may be, it would be found, in practice, a most pitiful
restriction. The government would always say, their measures were designed
and calculated to promote the public good; and there being no judge between
them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always, judge for
themselves.
There are others of the favorers of this system, who
admit, that the power of the Congress under it, with respect to revenue,
will exist without limitation, and contend, that so it ought to
be.
It is said, the power "to raise armies; to build
and equip fleets; . . . [and] to provide for their support, . . . ought to
exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or
define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent
extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy
them."
This, it is said, "is one of those truths which, to a
correct and unprejudiced mind, carries its own evidence along with it.... It
rests upon axioms as simple as they are universal; the means ought to be
proportioned to the end; the persons, from whose agency the attainment of
any end is expected, ought to possess the means by which it is to be
attained."'
This same writer insinuates, that the opponents to the
plan promulgated by the convention, manifests a want of candor, in objecting
to the extent of the powers proposed to be vested in this government;
because he asserts, with an air of confidence, that the powers ought to be
unlimited as to the object to which they extend; and that this position, if
not self-evident, is at least clearly demonstrated by the foregoing mode of
reasoning. But with submission to this author's better judgment, I humbly
conceive his reasoning will appear, upon examination, more specious than
solid. The means, says the gentleman, ought to be proportioned to the end.
Admit the proposition to be true, it is then necessary to inquire, what is
the end of the government of the United States, in order to draw any just
conclusions from it. Is this end simply to preserve the general government,
and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the union only?
Certainly not. For beside this, the state governments are to be supported,
and provision made for the managing such of their internal concerns as are
allotted to them. It is admitted "that the circumstances of our country are
such as to demand a compound instead of a simple, a confederate instead of a
sole, government," that the objects of each ought to be pointed out, and
that each ought to possess ample authority to execute the powers committed
to them. The government then, being complex in its nature, the end it has in
view is so also; and it is as necessary that the state governments should
possess the means to attain the end expected from them, as for the general
government. Neither the general government nor the state governments ought
to be vested with all the powers proper to be exercised for promoting the
ends of government. The powers are divided between them-certain ends are to
be attained by the one, and certain ends by the other; and these, taken
together, include all the ends of good government. This being the case, the
conclusion follows, that each should be furnished with the means, to attain
the ends, to which they are designed.
To apply this reasoning to the case of revenue, the
general government is charged with the care of providing for the payment of
the debts of the united States, supporting the general government, and
providing for the defense of the union. To obtain these ends, they should be
furnished with means. But does it thence follow, that they should command
all the revenues of the United States ? Most certainly it does not. For if
so, it will follow, that no means will be left to attain other ends, as
necessary to the happiness of the country, as those committed to their care.
The individual states have debts to discharge; their legislatures and
executives are to be supported, and provision is to be made for the
administration of justice in the respective states. For these objects the
general government has no authority to provide; nor is it proper it should.
It is clear then, that the states should have the command of such revenues,
as to answer the ends they have to obtain. To say, that "the circumstances
that endanger the safety of nations are infinite,"" and from hence to infer,
that all the sources of revenue in the states should be yielded to the
general government, is not conclusive reasoning: for the Congress are
authorized only to control in general concerns, and not regulate local and
internal ones. . .
The peace and happiness of a community is as
intimately connected with the prudent direction of their domestic affairs,
and the due administration of justice among themselves, as with a competent
provision for their defense against foreign invaders, and indeed more
so.
Upon the whole, I conceive, that there cannot be a clearer
position than this, that the state governments ought to have an
uncontrollable power to raise a revenue, adequate to the exigencies of their
governments; and, I presume, no such power is left them by this
constitution.
BRUTUS
Anti-federalist No.
34
THE PROBLEM OF CONCURRENT
TAXATION
The following speech by Patrick Henry was
delivered to the Virginia ratifying convention, June 5, 1788.
I never will give up the power of direct taxation but for
a scourge. I am willing to give it conditionally; that is, after
non-compliance with requisitions. I will do more, sir, and what I hope will
convince the most skeptical man that I am a lover of the American Union -
that, in case Virginia shall not make punctual payment, the control of our
custom-houses, and the whole regulation of trade, shall be given to
Congress, and that Virginia shall depend on Congress even for passports,
till Virginia shall have paid the last farthing, and furnished the last
soldier.
Nay, sir, there is another alternative to which I would
consent; even that they should strike us out of the Union, and take away
from us all federal privileges, till we comply with federal requisitions:
but let it depend upon our own pleasure to pay our money in the most easy
manner for our people. Were all the states, more terrible than the mother
country, to join against us, I hope Virginia could defend herself; but, sir,
the dissolution of the Union is most abhorrent to my mind. The first thing I
have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union; and I
hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that union. The
increasing population of the Southern States is far greater than that of New
England; consequently, in a short time, they will be far more numerous than
the people of that country. Consider this, and you will find this state more
particularly interested to support American liberty, and not bind our
posterity by an improvident relinquishment of our rights. I would give the
best security for a punctual compliance with requisitions; but I beseech
gentlemen, at all hazards, not to give up this unlimited power of taxation.
. . .
In this scheme of energetic government, the people
will find two sets of taxgatherers-the state and the federal sheriffs. This,
it seems to me, will produce such dreadful oppression as the people cannot
possibly bear. The federal sheriff may commit what oppression, make what
distresses, he pleases, and ruin you with impunity; for how are you to tie
his hands? Have you any sufficiently decided means of preventing him from
sucking your blood by speculations, commissions, and fees? Thus thousands of
your people will be most shamefully robbed: our state sheriffs, those
unfeeling blood-suckers, have, under the watchful eye of our legislature,
committed the most horrid and barbarous ravages on our people. It has
required the most constant vigilance of the legislature to keep them from
totally ruining the people; a repeated succession of laws has been made to
suppress their iniquitous speculations and cruel extortions; and as often
has their nefarious ingenuity devised methods of evading the force of those
laws: in the struggle they have generally triumphed over the legislature. It
is a fact that lands have been sold for five shillings, which were worth one
hundred pounds: if sheriffs, thus immediately under the eye of our state
legislature and judiciary, have dared to commit these outrages, what would
they not have done if their masters had been at Philadelphia or New York? If
they perpetrate the most unwarrantable outrage on your person or property,
you cannot get redress on this side of Philadelphia or New York; and how can
you get it there? If your domestic avocations could permit you to go
thither, there you must appeal to judges sworn to support this Constitution,
in opposition to that of any state, and who may also be inclined to favor
their own officers. When these harpies are aided by excisemen, who may
search, at any time, your houses, and most secret recesses, will the people
bear it? If you think so, you differ from me. Where I thought there was a
possibility of such mischiefs, I would grant power with a niggardly hand;
and here there is a strong probability that these oppressions shall actually
happen. I may be told that it is safe to err on that side, because such
regulations may be made by Congress as shall restrain these officers, and
because laws are made by our representatives, and judged by righteous
judges: but, Sir, as these regulations may be made, so they may not; and
many reasons there are to induce a belief that they will not, I shall
therefore be an infidel on that point till the day of my death.
Anti-federalist No.
35
FEDERAL TAXING POWER MUST
BE RESTRAINED
George Mason of Virginia opposed the Constitution
because it lacked a Bill of Rights, and centralized powers further than he
felt it necessary. Mason delivered the following speech before the
Virginia ratifying convention, June 4, 1788.
Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the
present clause [Article 1, Section 2] clearly discovers that it is a
national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that
clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct
taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself,
entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated
government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any
kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of
converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government is
totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us.
This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state
governments. Will the people of this great community
[Virginia] submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct
powers ? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed ? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the
one will destroy the other. The general government being
paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments,
the latter must give way to the former....
Requisitions [under the Articles of Confederation] have
been often refused, sometimes from an impossibility of complying with them;
often from that great variety of circumstances which retards the collection
of moneys; and perhaps sometimes from a wilful design of procrastinating.
But why shall we give up to the national government this power, so dangerous
in its nature, and for which its members will not have sufficient
information? Is it not well known that what would be a proper tax in one
state would be grievous in another? The gentleman who has favored us with a
eulogium in favor of this system [Wilson C. Nicholas], must, after all the
encomiums he has been pleased to bestow upon it, acknowledge that our
federal representatives must be unacquainted with the situation of their
constituents. Sixty-five members cannot possibly know the situation and
circumstances of all the inhabitants of this immense continent. When a
certain sum comes to be taxed, and the mode of levying to be fixed, they
will lay the tax on that article which will be most productive and easiest
in the collection, without consulting the real circumstances or convenience
of a country, with which, in fact, they cannot be sufficiently
acquainted.
The mode of levying taxes is of the utmost consequence;
and yet here it is to be determined by those who have neither knowledge of
our situation, nor a common interest with us, nor a fellow-feeling for us.
The subject of taxation differs in three fourths, nay, I might say with
truth, in four fifths of the states. If we trust the national government
with an effectual way of raising the necessary sums, it is sufficient:
everything we do further is trusting the happiness and rights of the people.
Why, then, should we give up this dangerous power of individual taxation?
Why leave the manner of laying taxes to those who, in the nature of things,
cannot be acquainted with the situation of those on whom they are to impose
them, when it can be done by those who are well acquainted with it?
If,
instead of giving this oppressive power, we give them such an effectual
alternative as will answer the purpose, without encountering the evil and
danger that might arise from it, then I would cheerfully acquiesce; and
would it not be far more eligible?
I candidly acknowledge the inefficacy
of the Confederation; but requisitions have been made which were impossible
to be complied with- requisitions for more gold and silver than were in the
united States. If we give the general government the power of demanding
their quotas of the states, with an alternative of laying direct taxes in
case of non-compliance, then the mischief would be avoided. And the
certainty of this conditional power would, in all human probability, prevent
the application, and the sums necessary for the Union would be then laid by
the states, by those who know how it can best be raised, by those who have a
fellow-feeling for us. Give me leave to say, that the sum raised one way
with convenience and case, would be very oppressive another way. Why, then,
not leave this power to be exercised by those who know the mode most
convenient for the inhabitants, and not by those who must necessarily
apportion it in such manner as shall be oppressive? . . . An indispensable
amendment . . . is, that Congress shall not exercise the power of raising
direct taxes till the states shall have refused to comply with the
requisitions of Congress. On this condition it may be granted; but I see no
reason to grant it unconditionally, as the states can raise the taxes with
more case, and lay them on the inhabitants with more propriety, than it is
possible for the general government to do. If Congress hath this power
without control, the taxes will be laid by those who have no fellow- feeling
or acquaintance with the people. This is my objection to the article now
under consideration. It is a very great and important one. I therefore beg
gentlemen to consider it. Should this power be restrained, I shall withdraw
my objections to this part of the Constitution; but as it stands, it is an
objection so strong in my mind, that its amendment is with me a sine qua non
of its adoption. I wish for such amendments, and such only, as are necessary
to secure the dearest rights of the people....
Anti-federalist No. 36
REPRESENTATION
AND INTERNAL TAXATION
Richard Henry Lee was arguably the best known
Antifederalist writer. His pamphlets were widely distributed and reprinted
in newspapers. Antifederalist Papers # 36/37 are excerpts from his first
pamphlet. Antifederalist Nos. 41, 42, 43, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 63, 69, 76-77
are taken from his second pamphlet.
A power to lay and collect
taxes at discretion, is, in itself, of very great importance. By means of
taxes, the government may command the whole or any part of the subject's
property. Taxes may be of various kinds; but there is a
strong distinction between external and internal taxes. External taxes are
import duties, which are laid on imported goods; they may usually be
collected in a few seaport towns, and of a few individuals, though
ultimately paid by the consumer; a few officers can collect them, and they
can be carried no higher than trade will bear, or smuggling permit - that in
the very nature of commerce, bounds are set to them. But internal taxes, as poll and land taxes, excises, duties on
all written instruments, etc., may fix themselves on every person and
species of property in the community; they may be
carried to any lengths, and in proportion as they are extended,
numerous officers must be employed to assess them, and to enforce the
collection of them. In the United Netherlands the general
government has complete powers, as to external taxation; but as to internal
taxes, it makes requisitions on the provinces. Internal taxation in this
country is more important, as the country is so very extensive As many
assessors and collectors of federal taxes will be above three hundred miles
from the seat of the federal government, as will be less. Besides, to lay
and collect taxes, in this extensive country, must require a great number of
congressional ordinances, immediately operating upon the body of the people;
these must continually interfere with the state laws, and thereby produce
disorder and general dissatisfaction, till the one system of laws or the
other, operating on the same subjects, shall be abolished. These ordinances
alone, to say nothing of those respecting the militia, coin, commerce,
federal judiciary, etc., will probably soon defeat the operations of the
state laws and governments.
Should the general government think it politic, as
some administration (if not all) probably will, to look for a support in a
system of influence, the government will take every occasion to multiply
laws, and officers to execute them, considering these as so many necessary
props for its own support. Should this system of policy be adopted, taxes
more productive than the impost duties will, probably, be wanted to support
the government, and to discharge foreign demands, without leaving anything
for the domestic creditors. The internal sources of taxation then must be
called into operation, and internal tax laws and federal assessors and
collectors spread over this immense country. All these circumstances
considered, is it wise, prudent, or safe, to vest the powers of laying and
collecting internal taxes in the general government, while imperfectly
organized and inadequate? And to trust to amending it hereafter, and making
it adequate to this purpose? It is not only unsafe but absurd to lodge power
in a government before it is fitted to receive it. It is confessed that this
power and representation ought to go together. Why give the power first? Why
give the power to the few, who, when possessed of it, may have address
enough to prevent the increase of representation? Why not keep the power,
and, when necessary, amend the constitution, and add to its other parts this
power, and a proper increase of representation at the same time? Then men
who may want the power will be under strong inducements to let in the
people, by their representatives, into the government, to hold their due
proportion of this power. If a proper representation be impracticable, then
we shall see this power resting in the states, where it at present ought to
be, and not inconsiderately given up.
When I recollect how lately congress, conventions,
legislatures, and people contended in the cause of liberty, and carefully
weighed the importance of taxation, I can scarcely believe we are serious in
proposing to vest the powers of laying and collecting internal taxes in a
government so imperfectly organized for such purposes. Should the united
States be taxed by a house of representatives of two hundred members, which
would be about fifteen members for Connecticut, twenty-five for
Massachusetts, etc., still the middle and lower classes of people could have
no great share, in fact, in taxation. I am aware it is said, that the
representation proposed by the new constitution is sufficiently numerous; it
may be for many purposes; but to suppose that this branch is sufficiently
numerous to guard the rights of the people in the administration of the
government, in which the purse and sword is placed, seems to argue that we
have forgot what the true meaning of representation is. . . .
In considering the practicability of having a full and
equal representation of the people from all parts of the union, not only
distances and different opinions, customs and views, common in extensive
tracts of country, are to be taken into view, but many differences peculiar
to Eastern, Middle, and Southern States. These differences are not so
perceivable among the members of congress, and men of general information in
the states, as among the men who would properly form the democratic branch.
The Eastern states are very democratic, and composed chiefly of moderate
freeholders; they have but few rich men and no slaves; the Southern states
are composed chiefly of rich planters and slaves; they have but few moderate
freeholders, and the prevailing influence in them is generally a dissipated
aristocracy. The Middle states partake partly of the Eastern and partly of
the Southern character. . . . I have no idea that the interests, feelings,
and opinions of three or four millions of people, especially touching
internal taxation, can be collected in such a house. In the nature of
things, nine times in ten, men of the elevated classes in the community only
can be chosen....
[Notice how even back then those of the northern states
had the perception that only the South had slaves and seemed to turn a blind eye to the
fact that the norhtern states had even MORE salvery ! This is how it was constantly presented
to them.]
I am sensible also, that it is said that congress will not attempt to lay and collect internal
taxes; that it is necessary for them to have the power,
though it cannot probably be exercised. I admit that it is not
probable that any prudent congress will attempt to lay and collect internal
taxes, especially direct taxes: but this only proves, that the
power would be improperly lodged in congress, and that it might be abused by
imprudent and designing men.
I have heard several gentlemen, to get rid of objections
to this part of the constitution, attempt to construe the powers relative to
direct taxes, as those who object to it would have them; as to these, it is
said, that congress will only have power to make requisitions, leaving it to
the states to lay and collect them. I see but very little color for this construction, and the attempt
only proves that this part of the plan cannot be
defended. By this plan there can be no doubt, but that the
powers of congress will be complete as to all kinds of taxes whatever.
Further, as to internal taxes, the state governments will have concurrent
powers with the general government, and both may tax the same objects in the
same year; and the objection that the general government may suspend a state
tax, as a necessary measure for the promoting the collection of a federal
tax, is not without foundation.
THE FEDERAL FARMER
Anti-federalist No.
37
FACTIONS AND THE
CONSTITUTION
.... To have a just idea of the government before us, and
to show that a consolidated one is the
object in view, it is necessary not only to examine the
plan, but also its history, and the politics of its particular
friends.
The confederation was formed when great confidence was
placed in the voluntary exertions of individuals, and of the respective
states; and the framers of it, to guard against usurpation, so limited, and
checked the powers, that, in many respects, they are inadequate to the
exigencies of the union. We find, therefore, members of congress urging
alterations in the federal system almost as soon as it was adopted. It was
early proposed to vest congress with powers to levy an impost, to regulate
trade, etc., but such was known to be the caution of the states in parting
with power, that the vestment even of these, was proposed to be under
several checks and limitations. During the war, the general confusion, and
the introduction of paper money, infused in the minds of the people vague
ideas respecting government and credit. We expected too much from the return
of peace, and of course we have been disappointed. Our governments have been
new and unsettled; and several legislatures, by making tender, suspension,
and paper money laws, have given just cause of uneasiness to creditors. By
these and other causes, several orders of men in the community have been
prepared, by degrees, for a change of government. And this very abuse of
power in the legislatures, which in some cases has been charged upon the
democratic part of the community, has furnished aristocratical men with
those very weapons, and those very means, with which, in great measure, they
are rapidly effecting their favorite object. And should an oppressive
government be the consequence of the proposed change, posterity may reproach
not only a few overbearing, unprincipled men, but those parties in the
states which have misused their powers.
The conduct of several legislatures, touching paper money,
and tender laws, has prepared many honest men for changes in government,
which otherwise they would not have thought of - when by the evils, on the one
hand, and by the secret instigations of artful men, on the other, the minds
of men were become sufficiently uneasy, a bold step was taken, which is
usually followed by a revolution, or a civil war. A general convention for
mere commercial purposes was moved for-the authors of this measure saw that
the people's attention was turned solely to the amendment of the federal
system; and that, had the idea of a total change been started, probably no
state would have appointed members to the convention. The idea of destroying
ultimately, the state government, and forming one consolidated system, could
not have been admitted-a convention, therefore, merely for vesting in
congress power to regulate trade was proposed. This was pleasing to the
commercial towns; and the landed people had little or no concern about it.
In September, 1786, a few men from the middle states met at Annapolis, and
hastily proposed a convention to be held in May, 1787, for the purpose,
generally, of amending the confederation. This was done before the delegates
of Massachusetts, and of the other states arrived-still not a word was said
about destroying the old constitution, and making a new one. The states
still unsuspecting, and not aware that they were passing the Rubicon,
appointed members to the new convention, for the sole and express purpose of
revising and amending the confederation-and, probably, not one man in ten
thousand in the United States, till within these ten or twelve days, had an
idea that the old ship was to be destroyed, and be put to the alternative of
embarking in the new ship presented, or of being left in danger of sinking.
The States, I believe, universally supposed the convention would report
alterations in the confederation, which would pass an examination in
congress, and after being agreed to there, would be confirmed by all the
legislatures, or be rejected. Virginia made a very respectable appointment,
and placed at the head of it the first man in America. In this appointment
there was a mixture of political characters; but Pennsylvania appointed
principally those men who are esteemed aristocratical. Here the favorite
moment for changing the government was evidently discerned by a few men, who
seized it with address. Ten other states appointed, and tho' they chose men
principally connected with commerce and the judicial department yet they
appointed many good republican characters. Had they all attended we should
now see, I am persuaded, a better system presented. The nonattendance of
eight or nine men, who were appointed members of the convention, I shall
ever consider as a very unfortunate event to the united States. Had they
attended, I am pretty clear that the result of the convention would not have
had that strong tendency to aristocracy now discernible in every part of the
plan. There would not have been so great an accumulation of powers,
especially as to the internal police of this country in a few hands as the
constitution reported proposes to vest in them-the young visionary men, and
the consolidating aristocracy, would have been more restrained than they
have been. Eleven states met in the convention, and after four months close
attention presented the new constitution, to be adopted or rejected by the
people. The uneasy and fickle part of the community may be prepared to
receive any form of government; but I presume the enlightened and
substantial part will give any constitution presented for their adoption a
candid and thorough examination.... We shall view the convention with proper
respect-and, at the same time, that we reflect there were men of abilities
and integrity in it, we must recollect how disproportionately the democratic
and aristocratic parts of the community were represented. Perhaps the
judicious friends and opposers of the new constitution will agree, that it
is best to let it rely solely on its own merits, or be condemned for its own
defects. . . .
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 endeavoring 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 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 revellers, Shayites, etc. 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, monarchists, etc. 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 revellers, 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 dependents, 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, 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.
. . .
THE FEDERAL FARMER
Anti-federalist No.
38
SOME REACTIONS TO
FEDERALIST ARGUMENTS
This was an essay by "BRUTUS JUNIOR" which appeared in The
New-York Journal on November 8, 1787. Two articles by "A COUNTRYMAN" were
written by DeWitt Clinton, and appeared also in the New York Journal on
January 10 and February 14, 1788.
I have read with a degree of attention several
publications which have lately appeared in favor of the new Constitution;
and as far as I am able to discern, the arguments (if they can be so termed)
of most weight, which are urged in its favor, may be reduced to the two
following:
1st. That the men who formed it,
were wise and experienced; that they were an illustrious band of patriots,
and had the happiness of their country at heart; that they were four months
deliberating on the subject, and therefore, it must be a perfect system.
2nd. That if the system be not received,
this country will be without any government, and of consequence, will be
reduced to a state of anarchy and confusion, and involved in bloodshed and
carnage; and in the end, a government will be imposed upon us, not the
result of reason and reflection, but of force and usurpation.
As I do not find ' that either Cato or the Centinel,
Brutus, or the Old Whig, or any other writer against this constitution, have
undertaken a particular refutation of this new species of reasoning, I take
the liberty of offering to the public, through the channel of your paper,
the few following animadversions on the subject; and, the rather, because I
have discovered, that some of my fellow citizens have been imposed upon by
it.
With respect to the first,-it will be readily perceived
that it precludes all investigation of the merits of the proposed
constitution, and leads to an adoption of the plan without inquiring whether
it be good or bad. For if we are to infer the perfection of this system from
the characters and abilities of the men who formed it, we may as well
determine to accept it without any inquiry as with. A number of persons in
this [New York] as well as the other states, have, upon this principle,
determined to submit to it without even reading or knowing its contents.
But supposing the premises from which this conclusion is
drawn to be just, it then becomes essential in order to give validity to the
argument, to inquire into the characters of those who composed this body,
that we may determine whether we can be justified in placing such unbounded
confidence in them.
It is an invidious task, to call in question the
characters of individuals, especially of such as are placed in illustrious
stations. But when we are required implicitly to submit our opinions to
those of others, from a consideration that they are so wise and good as not
to be liable to err, and that too in an affair which involves in it the
happiness of ourselves and our posterity, every honest man will justify a
decent investigation of characters in plain language.
It is readily admitted that many individuals who composed
this body were men of the first talents and integrity in the union. It is at
the same time, well known to every man, who is but moderately acquainted
with the characters of the members, that many of them are possessed of high
aristocratic ideas, and the most sovereign contempt of the common people;
that not a few were strongly disposed in favor of monarchy; that there were
some of no small talents and of great influence, of consummate cunning and
masters of intrigue, whom the war found poor or in embarrassed
circumstances, and left with princely fortunes acquired in public
employment. . . . that there were others who were young, ardent, and
ambitious, who wished for a government corresponding with their feelings,
while they were destitute of experience ... in political researches; that
there were not a few who were gaping for posts of honor and emolument-these
we find exulting in the idea of a change which will divert places of honor,
influence and emolument, into a different channel, where the confidence of
the people will not be necessary to their acquirement. It is not to be
wondered at, that an assembly thus composed should produce a system liable
to well founded objections, and which will require very essential
alterations. We are told by one of themselves (Mr. [James] Wilson of
Philadelphia) the plan was [a] matter of accommodation, and it is not
unreasonable to suppose, that in this accommodation, principles might be
introduced which would render the liberties of the people very insecure.
I confess I think it of no importance what are the
characters of the framers of this government, and therefore should not have
called them in question, if they had not been so often urged in print, and
in conversation, in its favor. It ought to rest on its own intrinsic merit.
If it is good, it is capable of being vindicated; if it is bad, it ought not
to be supported. It is degrading to a freeman, and humiliating to a rational
one, to pin his faith on the sleeve of any man, or body of men, in an affair
of such momentous importance.
In answer to the second argument, I deny that we are in
immediate danger of anarchy and commotions. Nothing but the passions of
wicked and ambitious men will put us in the least danger on this head. Those
who are anxious to precipitate a measure will always tell us that the
present is the critical moment; now is the time, the crisis is arrived, and
the present minute must be seized. Tyrants have always made use of this
plea; but nothing in our circumstances can justify it.
The country is in profound peace, and we are not
threatened by invasions from any quarter. The governments of the respective
states are in the full exercise of their powers; and the lives, the liberty,
and property of individuals are protected. All present exigencies are
answered by them. It is true, the regulation of trade and a competent
provision for the payment of the interest of the public debt is wanting; but
no immediate commotion will arise from these; time may be taken for calm
discussion and deliberate conclusions. Individuals are just recovering from
the losses and embarrassment sustained by the late war. Industry and
frugality are taking their station, and banishing from the community,
idleness and prodigality. Individuals are lessening their private debts, and
several millions of the public debt is discharged by the sale of the western
territory. There is no reason, therefore, why we should precipitately and
rashly adopt a system, which is imperfect or insecure. We may securely
deliberate and propose amendments and alterations. I know it is said we
cannot change for the worse; but if we act the part of wise men, we shall
take care that we change for the better. It will be labor lost, if after all
our pains we are in no better circumstances than we were before.
I have seen enough to convince me very fully, that the new
constitution is a very bad one, and a hundred-fold worse than our present
government. And I do not perceive that any of the writers in favor of it
(although some of them use a vast many fine words, and show a great deal of
learning) are able to remove any of the objections which are made against
it. Mr. [James] Wilson, indeed, speaks very highly of it, but we have only
his word for its goodness; and nothing is more natural than for a mother to
speak well of her own bantling, however ordinary it may be. He seems,
however, to be pretty honest in one thing-where he says, "It is the nature
of man to pursue his own interest, in preference to the public good"'-for
they tell me he is a lawyer, and his interest then makes him for the new
government, for it will be a noble thing for lawyers. Besides, he appears to
have an eye to some high place under it, since he speaks with great pleasure
of the places of honor and emolument being diverted to a new channel by this
change of system. As to Mr. Publius [The Federalist], I have read a great
many of his papers, and I really cannot find out what he would be at. He
seems to me as if he was going to write a history, so I have concluded to
wait and buy one of his books, when they come out. The only thing I can
understand from him, as far as I have read, is that it is better to be
united than divided-that a great many people are stronger than a few-and
that Scotland is better off since the union with England than before. And I
think, he proves too, very clearly, that the fewer nations there are in the
world, the fewer disputes [there] will be about the law of nations-and the
greater number that are joined in one government, the abler will they be to
raise ships and soldiers, and the less need for fighting. But I do not learn
that any body denies these matters, or that they have any thin- to do with
the new constitution, Indeed I am at a loss to know, whether Mr. Publius
means to persuade us to return back to the old government, and make
ourselves as happy as Scotland has by its union, or to accept of the new
constitution, and get all the world to join with us, so as to make one large
government. It would certainly, if what he says is true, be very convenient
for Nova-Scotia and Canada, and, for ought I know, his advice will have
great weight with them. I have also read several other of the pieces, which
appear to be wrote by some other little authors, and by people of little
consequence, though they seem to think themselves men of importance, and
take upon them grand names such as . . . Caesar,' . . . Now Mr. Caesar
do[es] not depend so much on reasoning as upon bullying. He abuses the
people very much, and if he spoke in our neighborhood as impudently as he
writes in the newspapers, I question whether he would come off with whole
bones. From the manner he talks of the people, he certainly cannot be one of
them himself. I imagine he has lately come over from some old country, where
they are all Lords and no common people. If so, it would be as well for him
to go back again as to meddle himself with our business, since he holds such
a bad opinion of us.
A COUNTRYMAN
The Federalist, as he terms himself, or Publius, puts one
in mind of some of the gentlemen of the long robe, when hard pushed, in a
bad cause, with a rich client. They frequently say a great deal which does
not apply; but yet, if it will not convince the judge nor jury, may,
perhaps, help to make them forget some part of the evidence, embarrass their
opponent, and make the audience stare, besides increasing the practice.
A COUNTRYMAN
Anti-federalist No.
39
APPEARANCE AND
REALITY-THE FORM IS FEDERAL; THE EFFECT IS
NATIONAL
The following excerpt is from the essays of "A
FARMER." It appeared in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer on April 15
and 22, 1788 .
. . . The Freeman, in his second number, after mentioning
in a very delusory manner diverse powers which remain with the states, says
we shall find many other instances under the constitution which require or
imply the existence or continuance of the sovereignty and severalty of the
states. He, as well as all the advocates of the new system, take as their
strong ground the election of senators by the state legislatures, and the
special representation of the states in the federal senate, to prove that
internal sovereignty still remains with the States. Therefore they say that
the new system is so far from annihilating the state governments, that it
secures them, that it cannot exist without them, that the existence of the
one is essential to the existence of the other. It is true that this
particular partakes strongly of that mystery which is characteristic of the
system itself. But if I demonstrate that this particular, so far from
implying the continuance of the state sovereignties, proves in the clearest
manner the want of it, I hope the other particular powers will not be
necessary to dwell upon.
The State legislatures do not choose senators by
legislative or sovereign authority, but by a power of ministerial agency as
mere electors or boards of appointment. They have no power to direct the
senators how or what duties they shall perform; they have neither power to
censure the senators, nor to supersede them for misconduct. It is not the
power of choosing to office merely that designates sovereignty, or else
corporations who appoint their own officers and make their own by-laws, or
the heads of department who choose the officers under them, such as
commanders of armies, etc., may be called sovereigns, because they can name
men to office whom they cannot dismiss therefrom. The exercise of
sovereignty does not consist in choosing masters, such as the senators would
be, who, when chosen, would be beyond control, but in the power of
dismissing, impeaching, or the like, those to whom authority is delegated.
The power of instructing or superseding of delegates to Congress under the
existing confederation has never been complained of, although the necessary
rotation of members of Congress has often been censured for restraining the
state sovereignties too much in the objects of their choice. As well may the
electors who are to vote for the president under the new constitution, be
said to be vested with the sovereignty, as the State legislatures in the act
of choosing senators. The senators are not even dependent on the States for
their wages, but in conjunction with the federal representatives establish
their own wages. The senators do not vote by States, but as individuals. The
representatives also vote as individuals, representing people in a
consolidated or national government; they judge upon their own elections,
and, with the Senate, have the power of regulating elections in time, place
and manner, which is in other words to say, that they have the power of
elections absolutely vested in them.
That the State governments have certain ministerial and
convenient powers continued to them is not denied, and in the exercise of
which they may support, but cannot control the general government, nor
protect their own citizens from the exertion of civil or military
tyranny-and this ministerial power will continue with the States as long as
two- thirds of Congress shall think their agency necessary. But even this
will be no longer than two-thirds of Congress shall think proper to propose,
and use the influence of which they would be so largely possessed to remove
it.
But these powers of which the Freeman gives us such a
profuse detail, and in describing which be repeats the same powers with only
varying the terms, such as the powers of officering and training the
militia, appointing State officers, and governing in a number of internal
cases, do not any of them separately, nor all taken together, amount to
independent sovereignty. They are powers of mere ministerial agency, which
may, and in many nations of Europe are or have been vested, as before
observed, in heads of departments, hereditary vassals of the crown, or in
corporations; but not that kind of independent sovereignty which can
constitute a member of a federal republic, which can enable a State to exist
within itself if the general government should cease.
I have often wondered how any writer of sense could have
the confidence to avow, or could suppose the people to be ignorant enough to
believe that, when a State is deprived of the power not only of standing
armies (this the members of a confederacy ought to be), but of commanding
its own militia, regulating its elections, directing or superseding its
representatives, or paying them their wages; who is, moreover, deprived of
the command of any property, I mean source of revenue or taxation, or what
amounts to the same thing, who may enact laws for raising revenue, but who
may have these laws rendered nugatory, and the execution thereof superseded
by the laws of Congress. [sic] This is not a strained construction, but the
natural operation of the powers of Congress under the new constitution; for
every object of revenues, every source of taxation, is vested in the general
government. Even the power of making inspection laws, which, for obvious
conveniency, is left with the several States, will be unproductive of the
smallest revenue to the State governments; for, if any should arise, it is
to be paid over to the officers of Congress. Besides, the words "to make all
laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,"
etc., give, without doubt, the power of repelling or forbidding the
execution of any tax law whatever, that may interfere with or impede the
exercise of the general taxing power, and it would not be possible that two
taxing powers should be exercised on the same sources of taxation without
interfering with each other. May not the exercise of this power of Congress,
when they think proper, operate not only to destroy those ministerial powers
which are left with the States, but even the very forms ? May they not
forbid the state legislatures to levy a shilling to pay themselves, or those
whom they employ, days' wages ?
The State governments may contract for making roads
(except post-roads), erecting bridges, cutting canals, or any other object
of public importance; but when the contract is performed or the work done,
may not Congress constitutionally prevent the payment? Certainly; they may
do all this and much more, and no man would have a right to charge them with
breaking the law of their appointment. It is an established maxim, that
wherever the whole power of the revenue or taxation is vested, there
virtually is the whole effective, influential, sovereign power, let the
forms be what they may. By this armies are procured, by this every other
controlling guard is defeated. Every balance or check in government is only
so far effective as it has a control over the revenue.
The State governments are not only destitute of all
sovereign command of, or control over, the revenue or any part of it, but
they are divested of the power of commanding or prescribing the duties,
wages, or punishments of their own militia, or of protecting their life,
property or characters from the rigors of martial law. The power of making
treason laws is both a power and an important defense of sovereignty; it is
relative to and inseparable from it; to convince the States that they are
consolidated into one national government, this power is wholly to be
assumed by the general government. All the prerogatives, all the essential
characteristics of sovereignty, both of the internal and external kind, are
vested in the general government, and consequently the several States would
not be possessed of any essential power or effective guard of sovereignty.
Thus I apprehend, it is evident that the consolidation of the States into
one national government (in contra- distinction from a confederacy) would be
the necessary consequence of the establishment of the new constitution, and
the intention of its framers-and that consequently the State sovereignties
would be eventually annihilated, though the forms may long remain as
expensive and burdensome remembrances of what they were in the days when
(although laboring under many disadvantages) they emancipated this country
from foreign tyranny, humbled the pride and tarnished the glory of royalty,
and erected a triumphant standard to liberty and independence.
A FARMER
Anti-federalist No. 40
ON THE MOTIVATIONS AND AUTHORITY OF
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
Anti-Federalist #40 is a compilation of
articles.
It was a common saying among many sensible men in
Great Britain and Ireland, in the time of the war, that they doubted whether
the great men of America, who had taken an active part in favor of
independence, were influenced by pure patriotism; that it was not the love
of their country they had so much at heart, as their own private, interest;
that a thirst after dominion and power, and not to protect the oppressed
from the oppressor, was the great operative principle that induced these men
to oppose Britain so strenuously. This seemingly illiberal sentiment was,
however, generally denied by the well-hearted and unsuspecting friends of
American liberty in Europe, who could not suppose that men would engage in
so noble a cause thro' such base motives. But alas! The truth of the
sentiment is now indisputably confirmed; facts are stubborn things, and
these set the matter beyond controversy. The new constitution and the
conduct of its despotic advocates, show that these men's doubts were really
well founded. Unparalleled duplicity! That men should oppose tyranny under a
pretence of patriotism, that they might themselves become the tyrants. How
does such villainy disgrace human nature! Ah, my fellow citizens, you have
been strangely deceived indeed; when the wealthy of your own country
assisted you to expel the foreign tyrant, only with a view to substitute
themselves in his stead. . .
But the members of the Federal Convention were men w e
been all tried in the field of action, say some; they have fought for
American liberty. Then the more to their shame be it said; curse on the
villain who protects virgin innocence only with a view that he may himself
become the ravisher; so that if the assertion were true, it only turns to
their disgrace; but as it happens it is not truth, or at least only so in
part. This was a scheme taken by the despots and their sycophants to bias
the public mind in favor of the constitution. For the convention was
composed of a variety of characters: ambitious men, Jesuits, tories,
lawyers, etc., formed the majority, whose similitude to each other,
consisted only in their determination to lord it over their fellow citizens;
like the rays that converging from every direction meet in a point, their
sentiments and deliberations concentered in tyranny alone; they were
unanimous in forming a government that should raise the fortunes and
respectability of the well born few, and oppress the plebeians.
PHILADELPHIENSIS
Does our soil produce no more Washington's ? Is
there none who would oppose the attempt to establish a government by force
? Can we not call from the fields, the counters, the bar, and
mechanics' shops, any more Generals ? Is our soil exhausted ?
And does any one suppose that the Americans, like the Romans, will submit to
an army merely because they have conquered a foreign enemy ? . . .
AN AMERICAN
I revere the characters of some of
the gentlemen that composed the convention at Philadelphia, yet I think they
were human, and subject to imposition and error, as well as the rest of
mankind. You lost eight or ten years of your lives and labor by the last
war, and you were left at last with your debts and encumbrances on you, and
numbers of you were soon after the close of it, sued and harassed for them.
Your persons have been put into a loathsome prison, and others of you have
had your property sold for taxes, and sometimes for one tenth of its former
and actual value and you now pay very grievous and heavy taxes, double and
treble what you paid before the war; and should you adopt this new
government, your taxes will be great, increased to support their . . .
servants and retainers, who will be multiplied upon you to keep you in
obedience, and collect their duties, taxes, impositions, and excises. Some
of you may say the rich men were virtuous in the last war; yes, my
countrymen, they had reason then to be so! Our liberty then was in dispute
with a mighty and powerful tyrant, and it was for their interest to promote
and carry on the opposition, as long as they could stay at home and send the
common people into the field to fight their battles. After the war began,
they could not with decency recede, for the sword and enemy were at the very
entrance of their gates. The case is greatly altered now; you conquered the
enemy, and the rich men now think to subdue you by their wiles and arts, or
make you, or persuade you, to do it yourselves. Their aim, I perceive, is
now to destroy that liberty which you set up as a reward for the blood and
treasure you expended in the pursuit of and establishment of it. They well
know that open force will not succeed at this time, and have chosen a safer
method, by offering you a plan of a new Federal Government, contrived with
great art, and shaded with obscurity, and recommended to you to adopt; which
if you do, their scheme is completed, the yoke is -fixed on your necks, and
you will be undone, perhaps for ever, and your boasted liberty is but a
sound, Farewell!
Be wise, be watchful, guard yourselves against the
dangers that are concealed in this plan of a new Federal
Government.
A FARMER AND
PLANTER
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Make the best of this new government
- say it is composed of any thing but inspiration - you ought to be
extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of
securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now
made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come
up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their
liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again,
and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us
into misery, and our republic will be lost. It will be necessary for this
[Virginia Ratifying] Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the
facts that preceded the session of the federal Convention, and the reasons
that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of government,
and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us. If they were of such awful
magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must
assert, that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery
of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make
this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late
federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity
of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That
this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of
such a government is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest
veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand: What
right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of
my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask: Who
authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We,
the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation.
If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great,
consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have
the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were
some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them.
America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them-a
confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any
thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives.
But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct.
Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor, I would have a
reason for his conduct. . . . That they exceeded their power is perfectly
clear. . . . The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system;
for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission
extended to no other consideration. You must, therefore, forgive the
solicitation of one unworthy member to know what danger could have arisen
under the present Confederation, and what are the causes of this proposal to
change our government.
PATRICK HENRY
What then are we to think of the motives and designs of
those men who are urging the implicit and immediate adoption of the proposed
government; are they fearful, that if you exercise your good sense and
discernment, you will discover the masqued aristocracy, that they are
attempting to smuggle upon you under the suspicious garb of republicanism ?
When we find that the principal agents in this business are the very
men who fabricated the form of government, it certainly ought to be
conclusive evidence of their invidious design to deprive us of our
liberties. The circumstances attending this matter, are such as should in a
peculiar manner excite your suspicion; it might not be useless to take a
review of some of them.
In many of the states, particularly in this [Pennsylvania]
and the northern states, there are aristocratic juntos of the well-horn few,
who have been zealously endeavoring since the establishment of their
constitutions, to humble that offensive upstart, equal liberty; but all
their efforts were unavailing, the ill-bred churl obstinately kept his
assumed station. . . .
A comparison of the authority under which the convention
acted, and their form of government, will show that they have despised their
delegated power, and assumed sovereignty; that they have entirely
annihilated the old confederation, and the particular governments of the
several States, and instead thereof have established one general government
that is to pervade the union; constituted on the most unequal principles,
destitute of accountability to its constituents, and as despotic in its
nature, as the Venetian aristocracy; a government that will give full scope
to the magnificent designs of the well-horn, a government where tyranny may
glut its vengeance on the low-born, unchecked by an odious bill of rights. .
. ; and yet as a blind upon the understandings of the people, they have
continued the forms of the particular governments, and termed the whole a
confederation of the united States, pursuant to the sentiments of that
profound, but corrupt politician Machiavel, who advises any one who would
change the constitution of a state to keep as much as possible to the old
forms; for then the people seeing the same officers, the same formalities,
courts of justice and other outward appearances, are insensible of the
alteration, and believe themselves in possession of their old government.
Thus Caesar, when he seized the Roman liberties, caused himself to be chosen
dictator (which was an ancient office), continued the senate, the consuls,
the tribunes, the censors, and all other offices and forms of the
commonwealth; and yet changed Rome from the most free, to the most
tyrannical government in the world. . . .
The late convention, in the majesty of its assumed
omnipotence, have not even condescended to submit the plan of the new
government to the confederation of the people, the true source of authority;
but have called upon them by their several constitutions, to 'assent to and
ratify' in toto, what they have been pleased to decree; just as the grand
monarch of France requires the parliament of Paris to register his edicts
without revision or alteration, which is necessary previous to their
execution. . . .
If you are in doubt about the nature and principles of the
proposed government, view the conduct of its authors and patrons: that
affords the best explanation, the most striking comment.
The evil genius of darkness presided at its birth, it came
forth under the veil of mystery, its true features being carefully
concealed, and every deceptive art has been and is practicing to have this
spurious brat received as the genuine offspring of heaven-born liberty. So
fearful are its patrons that you should discern the imposition, that they
have hurried on its adoption, with the greatest precipitation. . .
After so recent a triumph over British despots, after such
torrents of blood and treasure have been spent, after involving ourselves in
the distresses of an arduous war, and incurring such a debt for the express
purpose of asserting the rights of humanity; it is truly astonishing that a
set of men among ourselves should have the effrontery to attempt the
destruction of our liberties. But in this enlightened age to hope to dupe
the people by the arts they are practicing is still more extraordinary. . .
The advocates of this plan have artfully attempted to veil
over the true nature and principles of it with the names of those
respectable characters that by consummate cunning and address they have
prevailed upon to sign it; and what ought to convince the people of the
deception and excite their apprehensions, is that with every advantage which
education, the science of government and of law, the knowledge of history
and superior talents and endowments, furnish the authors and advocates of
this plan with, they have from its publication exerted all their power and
influence to prevent all discussion of the subject, and when this could not
be prevented they have constantly avoided the ground of argument and
recurred to declamation, sophistry and personal abuse, but principally
relied upon the magic of names. . . . Emboldened by the sanction of the
august name of a Washington, that they have prostituted to their purpose,
they have presumed to overleap the usual gradations to absolute power, and
have attempted to seize at once upon the supremacy of dominion.
CENTINEL
. . . Another thing they tell us, that the constitution
must be good, from the characters which composed the Convention that framed
it. It is graced with the names of a Washington and a Franklin. Illustrious
names, we know-worthy characters in civil society. Yet we cannot suppose
them to be infallible guides; neither yet that a man must necessarily incur
guilt to himself merely by dissenting from them in opinion. We cannot think
the noble general has the same ideas with ourselves, with regard to the
rules of right and wrong. We cannot think he acts a very consistent part, or
did through the whole of the contest with Great Britain. Notwithstanding he
wielded the sword in defense of American liberty, yet at the same time was,
and is to this day, living upon the labors of several hundreds of miserable
Africans, as free born as himself; and some of them very likely, descended
from parents who, in point of property and dignity in their own country,
might cope with any man in America. We do not conceive we are to be
overborne by the weight of any names, however revered.
"ALL MEN
ARE BORN FREE AND EQUAL;......
THE YEOMANRY OF MASSACHUSETTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anti-federalist No. 41-43 (Part
1)
Richard Henry Lee"THE QUANTITY
OF POWER THE UNION MUST POSSESS IS ONE THING; THE MODE OF EXERCISING
THE POWERS GIVEN IS QUITE A DIFFERENT
CONSIDERATION"
Taken from
"THE FEDERAL FARMER,"
. . . . A
federal republic in itself supposes state or local governments to exist,
as the body or props, on which the federal bead rests, and that it cannot
remain a moment after they cease. In erecting the federal government,
and always in its councils, each state must be known as a sovereign body.
But in erecting this government, I conceive, the legislature of the
state, by the expressed or implied assent of the people, or the people of
the state, under the direction of the government of it, may accede to the
federal compact. Nor do I conceive it to be necessarily a part of a
confederacy of states, that each have an equal voice in the general
councils. A confederated republic being organized, each state must
retain powers for managing its internal police, and all delegate to the
union power to manage general concerns. The quantity of power the
union must possess is one thing; the mode of exercising the powers
given is quite a different consideration - and it is the mode of
exercising them, that makes one of the essential distinctions between one
entire or consolidated government, and a federal republic. That is,
however the government may be organized, if the laws of the union, in
most important concerns, as in levying and collecting taxes, raising troops,
etc., operate immediately upon the persons and property of individuals,
and not on states, extend to organizing the militia, etc., the government,
as to its administration, as to making and executing laws, is not federal,
but consolidated. To illustrate my idea: the union makes a
requisition, and assigns to each state its quota of men or monies wanted;
each state, by its own laws and officers, in its own way, furnishes its
quota. Here the state governments stand between the union and
individuals; the laws of the union operate only on states, as such, and
federally. Here nothing can be done without the meetings of the state
legislatures. But in the other case the union, though the state
legislatures should not meet for years together, proceeds immediately by its
own laws and officers to levy and collect monies of individuals, to
enlist men, form armies, etc. Here the laws of the union operate
immediately on the body of the people, on persons and property. In
the same manner the laws of one entire consolidated government
operate. These two modes are very distinct, and in their operation and
consequences have directly opposite tendencies.... I am not for
depending wholly on requisitions. Since the peace, and till the
convention reported, the wisest men in the united States generally supposed
that certain limited funds would answer the purposes of the union. And
though the states are by no means in so good a condition as I wish they
were, yet, I think, I may very safely affirm, they are in a better
condition than they would be had congress always possessed the powers of
taxation now contended for. The fact is admitted, that our federal
government does not possess sufficient powers to give life and vigor to
the political system; and that we experience disappointments, and several
inconveniences. But we ought carefully to distinguish those which are
merely the consequences of a severe and tedious war, from those which
arise from defects in the federal system. There has been an entire
revolution in the United States within thirteen years, and the least we can
compute the waste of labor and property at, during that period, by the war,
is three hundred millions of dollars. Our people are like a man just
recovering from a severe fit of sickness. It was the war that
disturbed the course of commerce introduced floods of paper money, the
stagnation of credit, and threw many valuable men out of
steady business. From these sources our greatest evils arise.
Men of knowledge and reflection must perceive it. But then, have we
not done more in three or four years past, in repairing the injuries of the
war, by repairing houses and estates, restoring industry, frugality, the
fisheries, manufactures, etc., and thereby laying the foundation of good
government, and of individual and political happiness, than any people
ever did in a like time? We must judge from a view of the country and
facts, and not from foreign newspapers, or our own, which are printed
chiefly in the commercial towns, where imprudent living, imprudent
importations, and many unexpected disappointments, have produced a
despondency, and a disposition to view everything on the dark side.
Some of the evils we feel, all will agree, ought to be imputed to the
defective administration of the governments.
From these and various considerations, I am very clearly of opinion that
the evils we sustain merely on account of the defects of the confederation,
ar but as a feather in the balance against a mountain, compared with those
which would infallibly be the result of the loss of general liberty, and
that happiness men enjoy under a frugal, free, and mild
government.
Heretofore we do not seem to have
seen danger any where, but in giving power to congress, and now no where but
in congress wanting powers; and without examining the extent of the evils to
be remedied, by one step we are for giving up to congress almost all
powers of any importance without limitation. The defects of the
confederation are extravagantly magnified, an every species of pain we feel
imputed to them; and hence it is inferred, the must be a total change of
the principles, as well as forms of government And in the main
point, touching the federal powers, we rest all on a logical inference,
totally inconsistent with experience and sound political
reasoning.
It is said, that as the federal head
must make peace and war, and provide for the common defense, it ought to
possess all powers necessary to that end. That powers unlimited, as to
the purse and sword, to raise men and monies and form the militia, are
necessary to that end; and therefore, the federal head ought to possess
them.
This reasoning is far more specious than solid. It is
necessary that these powers so exist in the body politic, as to be called
into exercise whenever necessary for the public safety. But it is by
no means true that the man, or congress of men, whose duty it more
immediately is to provide for the common defense, ought to possess them
without limitation. But clear it is, that if such men, or congress, be
not in a situation to hold them without danger to liberty, he or they ought
not to possess
them. It has long been thought to be a well founded
position, that the purse and sword ought not to be placed in the same hands
in a free government. Our wise ancestors have carefully separated
them - placed the sword in the hands of their king, even under considerable
limitations, and the purse in the hands of the commons alone. Yet the
king makes peace and war, and it is his duty to provide for the common
defense of the nation. This authority at least goeth thus far-that a
nation, well versed in the science of government, does not conceive it to be
necessary or expedient for the man entrusted with the common defense and
general tranquility, to possess unlimitedly the power in question, or
even in any considerable degree. Could he, whose duty it is to defend
the public, possess in himself independently, all the means of doing it
consistent with the public good, it might be convenient. But the
people o England know that their liberties and happiness would be
in infinitely great danger from the king's unlimited possession of these
powers, than from al external enemies and internal commotions to which they
might be exposed Therefore, though they have made it his duty to guard the
empire, yet the have wisely placed in other hands, the hands of their
representatives, the power to deal out and control the means. In
Holland their high mightiness must provide for the common defense,
but for the means they depend in considerable degree upon requisitions
made on the state or local assemblies Reason and facts evince, that however
convenient it might be for an executive magistrate, or federal head, more
immediately charged with the national defense and safety, solely, directly,
and independently to possess all the means, yet such magistrate or head
never ought to possess them if thereby the public liberties shall be
endangered. The powers in question never have been, by nations wise
and free, deposited, nor can they ever be, with safety, any where out
of the principal members of the national system.
Where these form one
entire government, as in Great Britain, they are separated and lodged in
the principal members of it. But in a
federal republic, there is quite a different organization;
the people form this kind of government, generally, because their
territories are too extensive to admit of their assembling in one
legislature, or of executing the laws on free principles under one entire
government. They Convene in their local assemblies, for local
purposes, and for managing their internal concerns, and unite their
states under a federal head for general purposes. It
is the essential characteristic of a confederated republic, that this head
be dependent on, and kept within limited bounds by the
local governments; and it is because, in these alone, in fact,
the people can be substantially assembled or represented. It is,
therefore, we very universally see, in this kind of government, the
congressional powers placed in a few hands, and accordingly limited, and
specifically enumerated; and the local assemblies strong and well
guarded, and composed of numerous members. Wise men will always place the controlling power where the
people are substantially collected by their representatives. By the
proposed system the federal head will possess, without limitation, almost
every species of power that can, in its exercise, tend to change the
government, or to endanger liberty; while in it, I think it has been fully
shown, the people will have but the shadow of representation, and but the
shadow of security for their rights and liberties. In a confederated
republic, the division of representation, etc., in its nature, requires a
correspondent division and deposit of powers, relative to taxes and military
concerns. And I think the plan
offered stands quite alone, in confounding the principles of governments
in themselves totally distinct. I wish not to exculpate the states for
their improper neglects in not paying their quotas of requisitions.
But, in applying the remedy, we must be governed by reason and facts.
It will not be denied that the people have a
right to change the government when the majority choose it, if not
restrained by some existing compact; that they have a right to displace
their rulers, and consequently to determine when their measures are
reasonable or not; and that they have a right, at any time, to put a stop to
those measures they may deem prejudicial to them, by such forms and
negatives as they may see fit to provide. From all
these, and many other well founded considerations, I need not mention, a
question arises, what powers shall there be delegated to the federal
head, to insure safety, as well as energy, in the government? I think
there is a safe and proper medium pointed out by experience, by reason, and
facts.
When we have organized the government, we ought to give power to
the union, so far only as experience and present
circumstances shall direct, with a reasonable regard to time to come.
Should future circumstances, contrary to our
expectations, require that further powers be transferred to the
union, we can
do it far more easily, than get back those we may now imprudently
give. The system proposed is untried. Candid
advocates and opposers admit, that it is in a degree, a mere experiment, and
that its organization is weak and imperfect.
Surely then, the safe
ground is cautiously to vest power in it, and when we are sure we have given
enough for ordinary exigencies, to be extremely careful how we delegate
powers, which, in common cases, must necessarily be useless or abused, and
of very uncertain effect in uncommon ones. By giving the union power
to regulate commerce, and to levy and collect taxes by imposts, we give it
an extensive authority, and permanent productive funds, I believe quite
as adequate to present demands of the union, as excises and direct taxes can
be made to the present demands of the separate states. The state
governments are now about four times as expensive as that of the union; and
their several state debts added together, are nearly as large as that of
the union. Our impost duties since the peace have been
almost as productive as the other sources of taxation, and when under one
general system of regulations, the probability is that those duties will be
very considerably increased. Indeed the
representation proposed will hardly justify giving to congress unlimited
powers to raise taxes by imposts, in addition to the other powers
the union must necessarily have. It is said, that if
congress possess only authority to raise taxes by imposts, trade probably
will be overburdened with taxes, and the taxes of the union
be found inadequate to any uncommon exigencies. To this we
may observe, that trade generally finds its own level, and will naturally
and necessarily heave off any undue burdens laid upon it. Further, if
congress alone possess the impost, and also unlimited power to raise monies
by excises and direct taxes, there must be much more danger that two
taxing powers, the union and states, will carry
excises and direct taxes to an unreasonable extent,
especially as these have not the natural boundaries taxes on trade have.
However, it is not my object to propose to exclude congress from raising
monies by internal taxes, except in strict conformity to the federal plan; that is, by the agency of
the state governments in all cases, except where a state shall neglect, for
an unreasonable time, to pay its quota of a requisition; and never where so
many of the state legislatures as represent a majority of the people, shall
formally determine an excise law or requisition is improper, in their next
session after the same be laid before them. We ought always to
recollect that the evil to be guarded against is found by our own
experience, and the experience of others, to be mere neglect in the
states to pay their quotas; and power in the union to levy and collect
the neglecting states' quotas with interest, is fully adequate to
the evil. By this federal
plan, with this exception mentioned, we secure the
means of collecting the taxes by the usual process of law, and avoid the
evil of attempting to compel or coerce a state; and we avoid also a circumstance, which never yet could be, and I
am fully confident never can be, admitted in a free federal republic - I
mean a permanent and continued system of tax laws of the union, executed in
the bowels of the states by many thousand officers, dependent as to the
assessing and collecting federal taxes solely upon the
union. On every principle, then, we ought to provide
that the union render an exact account of all monies raised by imposts and
other taxes whenever monies shall be wanted for the purposes of the union
beyond the proceeds of the impost duties; requisitions shall be made on the
states for the monies so wanted; and that the
power of laying and collecting shall never be exercised,
except in cases where a state shall neglect, a given time, to pay its
quota. This mode seems to be strongly pointed out by the reason of the
case, and spirit of the government; and I believe, there is no instance to
be found in a federal republic, where the congressional powers ever extended
generally to collecting monies by direct taxes or excises. Creating all
these restrictions, still the powers of the union in matters of taxation
will be too unlimited; further checks, in my mind, are indispensably
necessary. Nor do I conceive, that as full a representation as is
practicable in the federal government, will afford sufficient
security. The strength of the government, and the confidence of the
people, must be collected principally in the local assemblies. . . . A
government possessed of more power than its constituent parts will
justify, will not only probably abuse it, but be unequal to bear its own
burden; it may as soon be destroyed by the pressure of power, as languish
and perish for want of it.
There are two ways further of raising
checks, and guarding against - undue combinations and influence in a
federal system. The first is - in levying taxes,
raising and keeping up armies, in building navies, in forming plans for
the militia, and in appropriating monies for the support of the military
- to require the attendance of a large proportion of the federal
representatives, as two-thirds or three-fourths of them; and in
passing laws, in these important cases, to require the consent of
two-thirds or three - fourths of the members present.
The second is, by
requiring that certain important laws of the federal head - as a
requisition or a law for raising monies by excise - shall be laid before the
state legislatures, and if disapproved of by a given number of them, say by
as many of them as represent a majority of the people, the law shall have no
effect. Whether it would be advisable to adopt both, or either of
these checks, I will not undertake to determine. We have seen them
both exist in confederated republics. The first exists substantially
in the confederation, and will exist in some measure in the plan proposed,
as in choosing a president by the house, or in expelling members; in the
senate, in making treaties, and in deciding on impeachments; and in the
whole, in altering the constitution. The last exists in the
United Netherlands, but in a much greater extent. The first is
founded on this principle, that these important measures may, sometimes, be
adopted by a bare quorum of members, perhaps from a few states, and that
a bare majority of the federal representatives may frequently be of the
aristocracy, or some particular interests, connections, or parties in the
community, and governed by motives, views, and inclinations
not compatible with the general interest. The last is founded
on this principle, that the people will be substantially represented,
only in their state or local assemblies; that their principal security must
be found in them; and that, therefore, they ought to have ultimately a
constitutional control over such interesting measures.
THE FEDERAL
FARMER
Anti-federalist No.
41-43 (Part II)
(Richard Henry
Lee)
"THE QUANTITY OF POWER THE UNION
MUST POSSESS IS ONE THING; THE MODE OF EXERCISING THE POWERS GIVEN IS QUITE
A DIFFERENT
CONSIDERATION"
. . .
In the present state of mankind, and of conducting war, the government of
every nation must have power to raise and keep up regular troops. The
question is, how shall this power be lodged? In an entire
government, as in Great-Britain, where the people assemble by their
representatives in one legislature, there is no difficulty; it is of course
properly lodged in that legislature. But in a confederated republic,
where the organization consists of a federal head, and local governments,
there is no one part in which it can be solely, and safely lodged.
By Art. 1., Sect. 8., "congress shall have power to raise and support
armies," etc. By Art. I., Sect. 10., "no state, without the
consent of congress, shall keep troops, or ships of war, in time of peace."
It seems fit the union should direct the raising of troops, and the union
may do it in two ways: by requisitions on the states, or by direct
taxes. The first is most conformable to the federal plan, and safest; and it may be
improved, by giving the union power, by its own laws and officers, to raise
the state's quota that may neglect, and to charge it with the expense; and
by giving a fixed quorum of the state legislatures power to disapprove the
requisition.
There would be less danger in this power to raise troops,
could the state governments keep
a proper control over the purse and over the militia. But after all
the precautions we can take, without evidently fettering the union too much,
we must give a large accumulation of powers to
it, in these and other respects. There is one
check, which, I think may be added with great propriety - that is, no land
forces shall be kept up, but by legislative acts annually passed by
congress, and no appropriation of monies for their support shall be for a
longer term than one year.
This is the constitutional practice
in Great Britain, and the reasons for such checks in the united States
appear to be much stronger. We may also require that these acts
be passed by a special majority, as before mentioned. There is
another mode still more guarded, and which seems to be founded in the true
spirit of a federal system: it seems proper to divide those powers we can
with safety, lodge them in no one member of the government alone; yet
substantially to preserve their use, and to insure duration to the
government by modifying the exercise of them - it is to empower congress
to raise troops by direct levies, not exceeding a given number, say 2000
in time of peace, and 12,000 in a time of war, and for such further troops
as may be wanted, to raise them by requisitions qualified ,as before
mentioned. By the above recited clause no state
shall keep troops, etc., in time of peace - this clearly implies it may do
it in time of war. This must be on the
principle that the union cannot defend all parts of the republic, and
suggests an idea very repugnant to the general tendency of the system
proposed, which is to disarm the state governments. A
state in a long war may collect forces sufficient to take the field against
the neighboring states. This clause was copied from the confederation,
in which it was of more importance than in the plan proposed, because under
this the separate states, probably, will have but small revenues.
By Article I., section 8., congress shall
have power to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies
throughout the united States. It is to be observed, that the
separate states have ever been in possession of the power, and in the use
of it, of making bankrupt-laws, militia laws, and laws in some other cases,
respecting which, the new constitution, when adopted, will give the union
power to legislate, etc. But no words are used by the constitution to
exclude the jurisdiction of the several states, and whether they will be
excluded or not, or whether they and the union will have concurrent
jurisdiction or not, must be determined by inference, and from the nature
of the subject. If the power, for instance, to make uniform laws
on the subject of bankruptcies, is in its nature indivisible, or
incapable of being exercised by two legislatures independently, or by one in
aid of the other, then the states are excluded, and cannot legislate at all
on the subject, even though the union should neglect or find it
impracticable to establish uniform bankrupt laws.
How far the union will
find it practicable to do this, time only can fully determine. When
we consider the extent of the country, and the very different ideas of the
different parts in it, respecting credit, and the mode of making men's
property liable for paying their debts, we may, I think with some degree of
certainty, conclude that the union never will be able to establish such
laws. But if practicable, it does not appear to me, on further
reflection, that the union ought to have the power. It does not appear
to me to be a power properly incidental to a federal head, and, I believe,
no one ever possessed it. It is a power that will immediately and
extensively interfere with the internal police of the separate states,
especially with their administering justice among their own citizens.
By giving this power to the union, we greatly extend the jurisdiction of
the federal judiciary, as all questions arising on bankrupt laws, being
laws of the union . . .- [indeed], almost all civil causes-may be drawn into
those courts. We must be sensible how cautious we ought to be in
extending unnecessarily the jurisdiction of those courts for reasons I
need not repeat. This article of power
too, will considerably increase, in the hands of the union, an
accumulation of powers, some of a federal and some of an unfederal
nature, [already] too large without it. The constitution provides that
congress shall have the sole and exclusive government of what is called the
Federal City, a place not exceeding ten miles square, and of all places
ceded for forts, dock-yards, etc. I believe this is a
novel kind of provision in a federal republic; it is repugnant to the spirit
of such a government, and must be founded in an apprehension of a hostile
disposition between the federal head and the state governments. And
it is not improbable that the sudden retreat of congress from Philadelphia
first gave rise to it.
With this apprehension, we provide, the
government of the union shall have secluded places, cities, and castles of
defense, which no state laws whatever shall invade. When
we
attentively examine this provision in all its consequences, it opens
to view scenes almost without bounds.
A federal, or rather a national
city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four
times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards,
and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or
towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the
state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be
recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be
averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken
of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of
particular parties, to obtain them. it is not improbable, that some
considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by
anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes
mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best
republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of
them, whenever occasion shall present.
The case is still stronger.
If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to
withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as
federal taxes; but the Federal City and places will be subject only to the
latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in
them, can the separate states demand any account of congress.
These
doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on
other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti - republican
men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.
If a federal town be necessary for the
residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one,
and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles,
carefully enumerated and established by the constitution.
it is true, the
states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and
government of congress in them shall always be formed on such
principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a
state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail
against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The
principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which
all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a
city and places for forts, etc., totally exempted from the laws and
jurisdictions of the state governments. If I understand
the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have
complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of
ground in the united States, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas,
and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people.
Suppose ten acres at West - Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a
sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places,
respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must
prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed
accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these
places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance,
for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding
questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by
state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere
citizens against the state law.
The city, and all the places in which the
union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under
one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any
state, and consequently no part of the united States. The inhabitants
of the Federal City and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and
control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia
will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia,
crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation
in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these
places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom.
All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places,
which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts;
and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts
may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of
these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal
fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any
place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made
in the Federal City; the courts will admit the fiction. . . . Every suit in
which an inhabitant of a federal district may be a party, of course may be
instituted in the federal courts; also, every suit in which it may be
alleged and not denied, that a party in it is an inhabitant of such a
district; also, every suit to which a foreign state or subject, the
union, a state, citizens of different states in fact, or by reasonable
legal fictions, may be a party or parties. And thus, by means of
bankrupt laws, federal districts, etc., almost all judicial business, I
apprehend may be carried into the federal courts, without essentially
departing from the usual course of judicial proceedings. The courts in
Great Britain have acquired their powers, and extended very greatly their
jurisdictions by such :fiction and suppositions as I have
mentioned. The constitution, in these points, certainly involves in it
principles, and almost hidden cases, which may unfold and in time exhibit
consequences we hardly think of. The power of naturalization, when
viewed in connection with the judicial powers and cases, is, in my mind, of
very doubtful extent. By the constitution itself, the citizens of each
state will be naturalized citizens of every state, to the general purposes
of instituting suits, claiming the benefits of the laws, etc. And
in order to give the federal courts jurisdiction of an action, between
citizens of the same state, in common acceptation - may not a court allow the
plaintiff to say, he is a citizen of one state, and the defendant a citizen
of another without carrying legal fictions so far, by any means, as they
have been carried by the courts of King's Bench and Exchequer, in order
to bring causes within their cognizance? Further, the federal city and districts, will be totally
distinct from any state, and a citizen of a state will not of course be
subject of any of them.
And to avail himself of the
privileges and immunities of them, must he not be naturalized by congress
in them? And may not congress make any proportion of the citizens
of the states naturalized subjects of the Federal City and districts, and
thereby entitle them to sue or defend, in all cases, in the federal
courts? I have my doubts, and many sensible men, I find, have their
doubts, on these points. And we ought to observe, they must be settled
in the courts of law, by their rules, distinctions, and fictions.
To avoid many of these intricacies and
difficulties, and to avoid the undue and unnecessary extension of the
federal judicial powers, it appears to me that no federal districts ought
to be allowed, and no Federal City or town - except perhaps a small town, in
which the government shall be republican, but in which congress shall
have no jurisdiction over the inhabitants of the
states. Can the union want, in such a
town, any thing more than a right to the soil to which it may set its
buildings, and extensive jurisdiction over the federal buildings, and
property, its own members, officers, and servant in it? As
to all federal objects, the union will have complete jurisdiction over
them of course any where, and every where. I still think that
no actions ought to be allowed to be brought in the federal courts, between
citizens of different states; at least, unless the cause be of very
considerable importance. And that no action against a state
government, by any citizen or foreigner, ought to be allowed; and no action,
in which a foreign subject is party, at least, unless it be of very
considerable importance, ought to be instituted in federal courts. I
confess, I can see no reason whatever, for a foreigner, or for citizens of
different states, carrying sixpenny causes into the federal courts. I
think the state courts will be found by experience, to be bottomed on better
principles, and to administer justice better than the federal courts.
The difficulties and dangers I have supposed will result from so
large a Federal City, and federal districts, from the extension of the
federal judicial powers, etc. are not, I conceive, merely possible,
but probable. I think pernicious political consequences will
follow from them, and from the Federal City
especially, for very obvious reasons, a few of which I will
mention.
We must observe that the citizens of a
state will be subject to state as well as federal taxes, and the
inhabitants of the Federal City and districts only to such taxes as congress
may lay. We are not to suppose all our people are attached to free
government, and the principles of the common law, but that
many thousands of them will prefer a city governed not on republican
principles. This city, and the government of it, must indubitably
take their tone from the characters of the men, who from the nature of its
situation and institution must collect there.
This city will not be
established for productive labor, for mercantile, or mechanic industry;
but for the residence of government, its officers and attendants. If
hereafter it should ever become a place of trade and industry, [yet]
in
the early periods of its existence, when its laws and government must
receive their fixed tone, it must be a mere court, with its appendages - the
executive, congress, the law courts, gentlemen of fortune and pleasure, with
all the officers, attendants, suitors, expectants and dependents on the
whole. However brilliant and honorable this collection may be, if we
expect it will have any sincere attachments to simple and frugal
republicanism, to that liberty and mild government, which is dear to the
laborious part of a free people, we must assuredly deceive ourselves.
This early collection will draw to it men from all parts of the country, of
a like political description. We see them looking towards the place
already.
Such a city, or town, containing a hundred
square miles, must soon be the great, the visible, and dazzling centre, the
mistress of fashions, and the fountain of politics. There may be a
free or shackled press in this city, and the streams which may issue from
it may over flow the country, and they will be poisonous or pure, as the
fountain may be corrupt or not. But not to dwell on a subject that
must give pain to the virtuous friends of freedom, I will only add, can a
free and enlightened
people create a common head so extensive, so prone
to corruption and slavery, as this city probably will be, when they have it
in their power to form one pure and chaste,
frugal and republican
?
THE FEDERAL FARMER
Anti-federalist No.
44
WHAT CONGRESS CAN DO; WHAT A
STATE
CAN NOT
"DELIBERATOR" appeared in
The Freeman's Journal; or, The North-American Intelligencer, February
20, 1788.
A writer in the Pennsylvania
Packet, under the signature of A
Freeman, has lately entered the lists as
another champion for the proposed constitution. Particularly he has
endeavored to show that our apprehensions of this plan of government being a consolidation of the United
States into one government, and not a confederacy of sovereign independent
states, is entirely groundless; and it must be acknowledged
that he has advocated this cause with as much show of reason, perhaps, as
the subject will admit.
The words states, several states, and
united states are, he observes, frequently mentioned in the
constitution. And this is an argument that their separate sovereignty
and independence cannot be endangered ! He has enumerated a
variety of matters which, he says, congress cannot do; and which
the states, in their individual capacity, must or may do, and
thence infers their sovereignty and independence. In some of
these, however, I apprehend he is a little mistaken.
1. "Congress cannot
train the militia." This is not strictly true.
For by the 1st
Article they are empowered " to provide for organizing, arming,
and disciplining " them; and tho' the respective states are said to have
the authority of training the militia, it must be "according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress." In this business, therefore, they
will be no other than subalterns under Congress, to execute their orders;
which, if they shall neglect to do, Congress will have constitutional powers
to provide for, by any other means they shall think proper. They shall
have power to declare what description of persons shall compose the
militia; to appoint the stated times and places for exercising them; to
compel personal attendance, whether when called for into actual service, or
on other occasions, under what penalties they shall think
proper, without regard to scruples of conscience or any
other consideration. Their executive officer may march and
countermarch them from one extremity of the state to the other-and all
this without so much as consulting the legislature of the particular states
to which they belong! Where then is that
boasted security against the annihilation of the state governments, arising
from "the powerful military support" they will have from their
militia ?
2. "Congress
cannot enact laws for the inspection of the
produce of the country."
Neither is this strictly true. Their power "to regulate commerce with
foreign nations and among the several states, and to make all laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying this power (among others vested
in them by the constitution) into execution," most certainly extends to
the enacting of inspection laws. The particular states may indeed
propose such laws to them; but it is expressly declared, in the lst article,
that "all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of
the
Congress."
3. "The
several states can prohibit or impose duties on the importation of slaves
into their own ports." Nay, not even this can they do, "without the consent
of Congress," as is expressly declared in the close of the lst article.
The duty which Congress may, and it is probable will lay on
the importation of slaves, will form a branch of their revenue. But
this impost, as well as all others, "must be uniform throughout the united
States." Congress therefore cannot consent that one state should impose an
additional duty on this article of commerce, unless all other states
should do the same; and it is not very likely that some of the states will
ever ask this favor.
4. "Congress
cannot interfere with the opening of rivers and canals; the making or
regulation of roads, except post roads; building bridges; erecting ferries;
building lighthouses, etc." In one case, which may very frequently
happen, this proposition also fails. For if the river, canal, road,
bridge, ferry, etc., be common to two states, or a matter in which
they may be both concerned, and consequently must both concur, then the
interference and consent of Congress becomes absolutely necessary, since it
is declared in the constitution that "no state shall, without the consent of
Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another state."
5. "The
elections of the President, Vice President, senators and representatives
are exclusively in the hands of the states-even as to filling vacancies."
This, in one important part, is not true. For, by the 2d article, "in
case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death,
resignation, or inability to discharge the duties of the said office, the
same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law
provide for the case of removal, death, etc., both of the President and Vice
President, declaring what officer shall then act as president, and such
officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a
president shall be elected." But no such election is provided for by the
constitution, till the return of the periodical election at the
expiration of the four years for which the former president was
chosen. And thus may the great powers of this supreme magistrate of
the united States be exercised, for years together, by a man
who, perhaps, never had one vote of the people for any office of
government
in his life.
6. "Congress
cannot interfere with the constitution of any state."
This has been often
said, but alas, with how little truth-since it is declared in the 6th
article that "this constitution and the laws of the united States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties, etc., shall be
the supreme law of the land, and every state shall be bound thereby,
anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
notwithstanding."
But, sir, in order to form a proper
judgment of the probable effects of this plan of general government on
the sovereignties of the several states, it is necessary also to take a view
of what Congress may, constitutionally, do and of what the states may not
do. This matter, however, the above writer has thought proper to
pass over in silence. I would therefore beg leave in some
measure, to supply this omission; and if in anything I should appear to be
mistaken I hope he will take the same liberty with me that I have done with
him-he will correct my mistake.
1.
Congress may, even in time of peace, raise an army of
100,000 men, whom
they may canton through the several states, and billet out on the
inhabitants, in order to serve as necessary instruments in executing
their
decrees.
2. Upon the inhabitants of any state proving refractory to the
will of Congress, or upon any other pretense whatsoever, Congress may can
out even all the militia of as many states as they think proper, and keep
them in actual service, without pay, as long as they please, subject to the
utmost rigor of military discipline, corporal punishment, and death itself
not
excepted.
3. Congress may levy and
collect a capitation or poll tax, to what amount they shall
think proper; of which the poorest taxable in the state must pay as much as
the richest.
4. Congress may, under
the sanction of that clause in the constitution which empowers them to
regulate commerce, authorize the importation of slaves, even into those
states where this iniquitous trade is or may be prohibited by their laws
or constitutions.
5. Congress
may, under the sanction of that clause which empowers them to lay and
collect duties (as distinct from imposts and excises) impose so heavy a
stamp duty on newspapers and other periodical publications, as
shall effectually prevent all necessary information to the people through
these useful channels of intelligence.
6. Congress may, by
imposing a duty on foreigners coming into the country, check the progress of
its population. And after a few years they may prohibit altogether,
not only the emigration of foreigners into our country, but also that
of our own citizens to any other country.
7. Congress may
withhold, as long as they think proper, all information respecting their
proceedings from the people.
8. Congress may
order the elections for members of their own body, in the several states, to
be held at what times, in what places, and in what manner they shall think
proper. Thus, in Pennsylvania, they may order the elections to be
held in the middle of winter, at the city of Philadelphia; by which means
the inhabitants of nine-tenths of the state will be effectually (tho'
constitutionally) deprived of the exercise of their right of
suffrage.
9. Congress may, in
their courts of judicature, abolish trial by jury in civil cases
altogether; and even in criminal cases, trial by a jury of the vicinage is
not secured by the constitution. A crime committed at Fort Pitt may
be tried by a jury of the citizens of Philadelphia.
10. Congress may, if they
shall think it for the "general welfare," establish an uniformity in
religion throughout the united States. Such establishments have been
thought necessary, and have accordingly taken place in almost all the
other countries in the world, and will no doubt be thought equally necessary
in this.
11.Though I believe it
is not generally so understood, yet certain it is, that Congress may emit
paper money, and even make it a legal tender throughout the united
States; and, what is still worse, may, after it shall have depreciated in
the hands of the people, call it in by taxes, at any rate of depreciation
(compared with gold and silver) which they may think proper. For
though no state can emit bills of credit, or pass any law impairing the
obligation of contracts, yet the Congress themselves are under no
constitutional restraints on these points.
12. The number of representatives
which shall compose the principal branch of Congress is so small as
to occasion general complaint.
Congress, however, have no power to
increase the number of representatives, but may reduce it even to one
fifth part of the present arrangement.
13. On the other hand, no state
can call forth its militia even to suppress any insurrection or domestic
violence which may take place among its own citizens. This power is,
by the constitution, vested in Congress.
14. No state can compel
one of its own citizens to pay a debt due to a citizen of a neighboring
state.
Thus a Jersey-man will be unable to recover the price of a turkey
sold in the Philadelphia market, if the purchaser shall be inclined to
dispute, without commencing an action in one of the federal courts.
15. No state can encourage its
own manufactures either by prohibiting or even laying a duty on the
importation of foreign articles.
16. No state can give relief to
insolvent debtors, however distressing their situation may be, since
Congress will have the exclusive right of establishing uniform laws on
the subject of bankruptcies throughout the united States; and the
particular states are expressly prohibited from passing any law impairing
the obligation of contracts.
DELIBERATOR
Anti-federalist No. 45
POWERS OF NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT
DANGEROUS TO STATE GOVERNMENTS;
NEW
YORK AS AN
EXAMPLE
Robert Yates, a delegate to
the 1787 convention from New York, left on July 10, 1787. He became
an Antifederalist leader. Under the nome de plume "Sydney" he wrote in
the New York Daily Patriotic Register, June 13 and 14, 1788.
TO THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK.
Although a variety of objections to the proposed
new constitution for the government of the united States have been laid
before the public by men of the best abilities, I am led to believe that
representing it in a point of view which has escaped their observation may
be of use, that is, by comparing it with the constitution of the State of
New York.
The following contrast is therefore submitted to
the public, to show in what instances the powers of the state government
will be either totally or partially absorbed, and enable us to determine
whether the remaining powers will, from those kind of pillars, be capable of
supporting the mutilated fabric of a government which even the advocates for
the new constitution admit excels "the boasted models of Greece or
Rome, and those of all other nations, in having precisely marked out the
power of the government and the rights of the people."
It may be proper to premise that the pressure of
necessity and distress (and not corruption) had a principal tendency to
induce the adoption of the state constitutions and the existing
confederation; that power was even then vested in the rulers with the
greatest caution; and that, as from every circumstance we have reason to
infer that the Dew constitution does not originate from a pure source, we
ought deliberately to trace the extent and tendency of the trust we are
about to repose, under the conviction that a reassumption of that trust will
at least be difficult, if not impracticable. If we take a
retrospective view of the measures of Congress. . . . we can scarcely
entertain a doubt but that a plan has long since been framed to subvert the
confederation; that that plan has been matured with the most persevering
industry and unremitted attention; and that the objects expressed in the
preamble to the constitution, that is "to promote the general welfare and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," were merely
the ostensible, and not the real reasons of its framers. . .
The state governments are considered in .
. . [the new constitution] as mere dependencies, existing solely by its
toleration, and possessing powers of which they may be deprived whenever
the general government is disposed so to do. If then the powers of the
state governments are to be totally absorbed, in which all agree, and only
differ as to the mode-whether it will be effected by a rapid progression, or
by as certain, but slower, operations-what is to limit the oppression of
the general government? Where are the
rights, which are declared to be incapable of violation? And what
security have people against the wanton oppression of unprincipled
governors? No constitutional redress is pointed out, and no express
declaration is contained in it, to limit the boundaries of their
rulers. Beside which the mode and period of their
being elected tends to take away their responsibility to the people over
whom they may, by the power of the purse and the sword, domineer at
discretion. Nor is there a power on earth to tell them, What dost
thou? or, Why dost thou so? I shall now proceed to compare the
constitution of the state of New York with the proposed federal government,
distinguishing the paragraphs in the former, which are rendered nugatory by
the latter; those which are in a great measure enervated, and such as are
in the discretion of the general government to permit or
not....
1 & 37
The 1st "Ordains, determines, and
declares that no authority shall on any pretence whatever be exercised over
the people or the members of this State, but such as shall be derived from
and granted by them."
The 37th, "That no purchases or
contracts for the sale of lands with or of the Indians within the limits of
this state, shall be binding on the Indians, or deemed valid,
unless made under the authority and with the consent of the legislature of
this state."
. . . What have we reasonably to expect
will be their conduct [i.e., the new national government]
when possessed of the powers "to regulate commerce with foreign nations,
and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes," when they are
armed with legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and their laws the
supreme laws of the land. And when the states are
prohibited, without the consent of Congress, to lay any "imposts or duties
on imports," and if they do they shall be for the use of the Treasury of the
united States-and all such laws subject to the revision and control of
Congress.
It is . . . evident that this state, by adopting
the new government, will enervate their legislative rights, and
totally surrender into the hands of Congress the management and
regulation of the Indian trade to an improper government, and the traders to
be fleeced by iniquitous impositions, operating at one and the same time
as a monopoly and a poll-tax. . . .
The 2nd provides "that the supreme
legislative power within this state shall be vested in two separate and
distinct bodies of men, the one to be called the assembly, and the other to
be called the senate of the state of New York, who together shall form
the legislature."
The 3rd provides against laws that may be
hastily and inadvertently passed, inconsistent with the spirit of
the constitution and the public good, and that "the governor,
the chancellor and judges of the supreme court, shall revise all bills
about to be passed into laws, by the legislature."
The 9th provides "that the assembly shall
be the judge of their own members, and enjoy the same privileges, and
proceed in doing business in like manner as the assembly of the colony of
New York of right formerly did."
The 12th provides "that the senate shall,
in like manner, be judges of their own members," etc.
The 31st describes even the style of
laws-that the style of alt laws shall be as follows: "Be it enacted by the
people of the state of New York represented in senate and assembly," and
that all writs and proceedings shall run in the name of the people of the
state of New York, and tested in the name of the chancellor or the chief
judge from whence they shall issue.
The powers vested in the legislature of
this state by these paragraphs will be weakened, for the proposed new
government declares that "all legislative powers therein granted shall be
vested in a congress of the united States, which shall consist of a senate
and a house of representatives," and it further prescribes, that "this
constitution and the laws of the united States, which shall be made in
pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shalt be made under
the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land,
and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding; and
the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and
judicial officers, both of the united States and of the several states,
shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this
constitution."
Those who are full of faith, suppose that
the words "in pursuance thereof" are restrictive, but if they reflect a
moment and take into consideration the comprehensive expressions of the
instrument, they will find that their restrictive construction is
unavailing, and this is evidenced by 1st art., 8th sect., where this
government has a power "to lay and collect all taxes, duties, imposts and
excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general
welfare of the united States," and also "to make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested
by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any
department or office thereof."
. . . . To conclude my observation
on this head, it appears to me as impossible that these powers in the state
constitution and those in the general government can exist and operate
together, as it would be for a man to serve two masters whose interests
clash, and secure the approbation of both. Can there at the
same time and place be and operate two supreme legislatures, executives,
and judicials? Will a "guarantee of a republican form of government
to every state in the union" be of any avail, or secure the establishment
and retention of state rights ?
If this guarantee had remained, as it was
first reported by the committee of the whole house, to wit, "that a
republican constitution, and its existing laws, ought to be guaranteed to
each state by the United States," it would have been substantial; but the
changing the word constitution into the word form bears no favorable
appearance.
. .
.
13, 35, 41
By the 13th paragraph "no member
of this State shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or
privileges secured to the subjects of the State by the constitution, unless
by the law of the land, or judgment of its peers."
The 35th adopts, under certain exceptions
and modifications, the common law of England, the statute law of England
and Great Britain, and the acts of the legislature of the colony, which
together formed the law on the 19th of April, 1775.
The 41st provides "that the trial by jury
remain inviolate forever; that no acts of attainder shall be passed by
the legislature of this State for crimes other than those committed before
the termination of the present war. And
that the legislature shall at no time hereafter institute any new
courts
but such as shall proceed according to the course of the common
law.
There can be no doubt that if the new
government be adopted in all its latitude, every one of these paragraphs
will become a dead letter. Nor will it solve any difficulties, if
the united States guarantee "to every state in the union a republican
form of government;" we may be allowed the form and not the substance,
and that it was so intended will appear from the changing the word
constitution to the word form and the omission of the words, and its
existing laws.
And I do not even think it
uncharitable to suppose that it was designedly done; but whether it was so
or not, by leaving out these words the jurisprudence of each state is left
to the mercy of the new government....
17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 27, 40
The 17th orders "That the
supreme executive power and authority of this State shall be vested in a
governor."
By the 18th he is commander- in-chief of
the militia and admiral of the navy of the State; may grant pardons to all
persons convicted of crimes; he may suspend the execution of the sentence
in treason or murder.
By the 19th paragraph he is to see that
the laws and resolutions of the legislature be faithfully executed.
The 20th and 21st paragraphs give the
lieutenant-governor, on the death, resignation, removal from office, or
impeachment of the governor, all the powers of a governor.
By the 27th he [the Governor] is president
of the council of appointment, and has a casting vote and the
commissioning of all officers.
The 40th paragraph orders that the militia
at all times, both in peace and war, shall be armed and disciplined, and
kept in readiness; in what manner the Quakers shall be excused; and that a
magazine of warlike stores be forever kept at the expense of the State,
and by act of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in
every county in the State.
Whoever considers
the following powers vested in the [national] government, and compares them
with the above, must readily perceive they are either all enervated
or annihilated.
By the 1st art., 8th sec.,
15th, 16th and 17th clauses, Congress will be empowered to call forth the
militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel
invasions; to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the
militia, for the governing such part of them as may be employed in the
service of the United States, and for the erection of forts, magazines,
etc.
And by the 2nd art., 2nd sec.,
"The
president shall be commander- in-chief of the army and navy of the united
States, and of the militia of the several States when called into actual
service of the united States. . . . except in cases of
impeachment."
And by the 6th art., "The members of the
several state legislatures, and all the executive and judicial officers;
both of the united States, and of the several states, shall be bound by oath
or affirmation to support the constitution."
Can this oath be taken by those who have already taken one under the
constitution of this state? ... From these powers lodged in Congress and the
powers vested in the states, it is clear that there must be a government
within a government; two legislative, executive, and judicial powers.
The power of raising an army in time of peace, and to command the militia,
will give the president ample means to enforce the supreme laws of the
land. . . .
42
This paragraph provides "that it shalt be
in the discretion of the legislature to naturalize all such persons and in
such manner as they shall think proper."
The 1st art., 8th sec., 4th clause, give
to the new government power to establish a uniform rule
of naturalization. And by the 4th art., 2nd sec., "the citizens
of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several states," whereby the clause is rendered entirely
nugatory.
From this contrast it appears that the
general government, when completely organized, will absorb all those powers
of the state which the framers of its constitution had declared should be
only exercised by the representatives of the people of the state; that
the burdens and expense of supporting a state establishment will be
perpetuated; but its operations to ensure or contribute to any essential
measures promotive of the happiness of the people may be totally prostrated,
the general government arrogating to itself the right of interfering
in
the most minute objects of internal police, and the most
trifling domestic concerns of every state, by possessing a power of
passing laws "to provide for the general welfare of the United States,"
which may affect life, liberty and property in every modification they may
think expedient, unchecked by cautionary reservations, and unrestrained
by a declaration of any of those rights which the wisdom and prudence of
America in the year 1776 held ought to be at all events protected from
violation.
In a word, the new constitution will prove
finally to dissolve all the power of the several state legislatures, and
destroy the rights and liberties of the people; for the power of the first
will be all in all, and of the latter a mere shadow and form without
substance, and if adopted we may (in imitation of the Carthagenians) say,
Delenda vit America.
SYDNEY
Anti-federalist No. 46
"WHERE THEN IS THE RESTRAINT
?"
This essay
by "AN OLD WHIG" (see AFP #'s Nos. 18-20, 49, 50, and 70) appeared in
the Maryland Gazette
and Baltimore Advertiser on Nov. 2,
1788.
Let us look to the first article
of the proposed new
constitution, which treats of the legislative powers
of Congress; and to the eighth section, which pretends to define those
powers. We find here that the Congress in its legislative capacity,
shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, and excises; to
borrow money; to regulate commerce; to fix the rule for naturalization and
the laws of bankruptcy; to coin money; to punish counterfeiters; to
establish post offices and post roads; to secure copy rights to authors; to
constitute tribunals; to define and punish piracies; to declare war; to
raise and support armies; to provide and support a navy; to call forth the
militia; to organize, arm and discipline the militia; to exercise absolute
power over a district ten miles square, independent of all the State
legislatures, and to be alike absolute over all forts, magazines, arsenals,
dock-yards, and other needful buildings there unto belonging. This
is a short abstract of the powers given to Congress.
These powers are very
extensive, but I shall not stay at present to inquire
whether these express powers were necessary to be given to Congress ?
Whether they are too great or too small ?
My object is to consider that undefined,
unbounded and immense power which is comprised in the following clause -
"And to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
constitution in the government of the united States; or in any department or
offices thereof." Under such a clause as this, can anything be said to be
reserved and kept back from Congress ? Can it be said that the
Congress have no power but what is expressed? "To make all laws
which shall be necessary and proper" - or, in other words, to make all such
laws which the Congress shall think necessary and proper - for who shalt
judge for the legislature what is necessary and proper ? Who shall set
themselves above the sovereign?
What inferior legislature shall set
itself above the supreme legislature? To me it appears that no
other power on earth can dictate to them, or control them, unless by force;
and force, either internal or external, is one of those calamities which
every good man would wish his country at all times to be delivered
from. This generation in America have seen enough of war, and its
usual concomitants, to prevent all of us from wishing to see any more of
it-all except those who make a trade of war. But to the question -
without force what can restrain the Congress from making such laws
as they please? What limits are there to their authority? I
fear none at all. For surely it cannot be justly said that they have
no power but what is expressly given to them, when by the very terms of
their creation they are vested with the powers of making laws in all
cases -necessary and proper; when from the nature of their power, they must
necessarily be the judges what laws are necessary and proper.
The British act of Parliament, declaring the
power of Parliament to make laws to bind America in all cases whatsoever,
was not more extensive. For it is as true as a maxim, that even the
British Parliament neither could nor would pass any law in any case in which
they did not either deem it necessary and proper to make such a law, or
pretend to deem it so. And in such cases it is not of a farthing
consequence whether they really are of opinion that the law is necessary and
proper, or only pretend to think so, for who can overrule their
pretensions? No one; unless we had a Bill of Rights, to which we might
appeal and under which we might contend against any assumption of undue
power, and appeal to the judicial branch of the government to protect us
by their judgments. This reasoning, I fear, is but too just. And
yet, if any man should doubt the truth of it, let me ask him one other
question:
What is the meaning of the latter
part of the clause which vests the Congress with the authority of making all
laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all
other powers (besides the foregoing powers vested, etc.,
etc.)?
Was it thought that the foregoing powers might
perhaps admit of some
restraint, in their construction as to what was necessary and proper to
carry them into execution? Or was it deemed right to add still further
that they should not be restrained to the powers already named?
Besides the powers already mentioned, other powers may be assumed hereafter
as contained by implication in this constitution. The Congress
shall judge of what is necessary and proper in all these cases, and
in all other cases-in short, in all cases whatsoever.
Where then is
the restraint ?
How are Congress bound
down to the powers expressly given? What is reserved, or can be
reserved? Yet even this is not all. As if it were determined
that no doubt should remain, by the sixth article of the Constitution it is
declared that "this Constitution and the laws of the United States which
shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the authority of the United States, shalt be the supreme law of
the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in
the Constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
The Congress are therefore vested with the supreme legislative power,
without control. In giving such immense, such unlimited powers, was
there no necessity of a Bill of Rights, to secure to the people their
liberties ?
Is it not evident that we are left wholly
dependent on the wisdom and virtue of the men who shall from time to time be
the members of Congress? And who shall be able to say seven years
hence, the members of Congress will be wise and good men, or of the
contrary character?
Antifederalist No. 47
"BALANCE" OF DEPARTMENTS
NOT
ACHIEVED UNDER NEW
CONSTITUTION
This essay is made up of of
excerpts from "CENTINEL's," letters of October 5 and 24, 1787. Taken
from The Independent Gazetteer,
I am
fearful that the principles of government inculcated in Mr. [John] Adams'
treatise [Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the united States of
America], and enforced in the numerous essays and paragraphs in the
newspapers, have misled some well designing members of the late
Convention. But it will appear in the sequel, that the construction
of the proposed plan of government is infinitely more
extravagant.
I have been anxiously expecting
that some enlightened patriot would, ere this, have taken up the pen
to expose the futility, and counteract the baneful tendency of
such principles. Mr. Adams' sine qua non of a good government is
three balancing powers; whose repelling qualities are to produce an
equilibrium of interests, and thereby promote the happiness of the whole
community. He asserts that the administrators of every government,
will ever be actuated by views of private interest and ambition, to the
prejudice of the public good; that therefore the only effectual method to
secure the rights of the people and promote their welfare,
is to create an opposition of interests between the members of two
distinct bodies, in the exercise of the powers of government, and
balanced by those of a third. This hypothesis supposes human wisdom
competent to the task of instituting three co-equal orders in government,
and a corresponding weight in the community to enable them respectively
to exercise their several parts, and whose views and interests should be so
distinct as to prevent a coalition of any two of them for the destruction of
the third. Mr. Adams, although he has traced the constitution of
every form of government that ever existed, as far as history affords
materials, has not been able to adduce a single instance of such a
government. He indeed says that the British constitution is such
in theory, but this is rather a confirmation that his principles
are chimerical and not to be reduced to practice. If such
an organization of power were practicable, how long would
it continue? Not a day-for there is so great a disparity in the
talents, wisdom and industry of mankind, that the scale would presently
preponderate to one or the other body, and with every accession of power the
means of further increase would be greatly extended. The state of
society in England is much more favorable to such a scheme of government
than that of America.
There they have a powerful hereditary nobility,
and real distinctions of rank and interests; but even there, for want of
that perfect equality of power and distinction of interests in the three
orders of government, they exist but in name. The only operative
and efficient check upon the conduct of administration, is the sense of the
people at large.
Suppose a government could be formed and
supported on such principles, would it answer the great purposes of civil
society? If the administrators of every government are actuated by
views of private interest and ambition, how is the welfare and happiness
of the community to be the result of such jarring adverse interests ?
Therefore, as different orders in
government will not produce the good of the whole, we must recur to other
principles. I believe it will be found that the form of government,
which holds those entrusted with power in the greatest responsibility to
their constituents, the best calculated for freemen. A republican,
or free government, can only exist where the body of the people are
virtuous, and where property is pretty equally divided.&nbs