Part 1 (1/2)

Essays on the Const.i.tution of the United States.

by Paul Leicester Ford.

INTRODUCTION.

In 1888 the editor selected from the pamphlet arguments published during the discussion of the Const.i.tution of the United States, prior to its ratification by the States, a collection of fourteen tracts, and printed them in a volume under the t.i.tle of _Pamphlets on the Const.i.tution of the United States_. The reception given that collection clearly proved that these writings were only neglected because of their rarity and inaccessibility, and has induced the editor to collect another, though largely similar cla.s.s of writings, which he believes of equal value and equally unknown.

In the great discussion which took place in the years 1787 and 1788 of the adoption or rejection of the Const.i.tution of the United States, one of the important methods of influencing public opinion, resorted to by the partisans and enemies of the proposed frame of government, was the contribution of essays to the press of the period. The newspapers were filled with anonymous articles on this question, usually the product of the great statesmen and writers of that period. Often of marked ability, and valuable as the personal views of the writers, the dispersion and destruction of the papers that contained them have resulted in their almost entire neglect as historical or legal writings, and the difficulty of their proper use has been further increased by their anonymous character, which largely destroyed the authority and weight they would have carried, had their true writers been known.

From an examination of over forty files of newspapers and many thousand separate issues, scattered in various public and private libraries, from Boston to Charleston, the editor has selected a series of these essays, and reprinted them in this volume. From various sources he has obtained the name of the writer of each. All here reprinted are the work of well-known men. Five of the writers were Signers of the Declaration of Independence; seven were members of the Federal Convention; many were members of the State Conventions, and there discussed the Const.i.tution.

All had had a wide experience in law and government. Their arguments are valuable, not merely for their reasoning, but from their statement of facts. New light is thrown upon the proceedings in the Federal Convention, so large a part of which is yet veiled in mystery; and personal motives, and state interests, are mercilessly laid bare, furnis.h.i.+ng clues of both the support of and opposition to the Const.i.tution. Subsequently most of the writers were prominent in administering this Const.i.tution or opposing its development, and were largely responsible for the resulting tendencies of our government.

PAUL LEICESTER FORD.

_Brooklyn, N. Y., April, 1892._

THE LETTERS OF Ca.s.sIUS, WRITTEN BY JAMES SULLIVAN.

Note.

The letters signed Ca.s.sius were, at the time of publication, generally accredited to the pen of James Sullivan, and this opinion is adopted in Amory's _Life of James Sullivan_. The letters themselves bear out this opinion, being clearly written by a partisan of the Hanc.o.c.k faction, of whom Sullivan was a warm adherent, and constant newspaper essayist.

The first two letters were printed before the promulgation of the proposed Const.i.tution in Ma.s.sachusetts, and chiefly relate to the differences between the two parties headed by John Hanc.o.c.k and James Bowdoin; but are included here to complete the series. The letters are of particular value as giving the position of Hanc.o.c.k, of whom Sullivan was the particular mouthpiece, proving him to be a supporter of the adoption of the Const.i.tution, though the contrary has often been a.s.serted. The early letters were commented upon by ”Old Fog,” in the _Ma.s.sachusetts Centinel_ of Sept. 22 and Oct. 6, 1787.

Ca.s.sius, I.

The Ma.s.sachusetts Gazette, (Number 367).

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1787.

For the Ma.s.sachusetts Gazette.

It is a great pity that such an able writer as Numa(1) should take up the pen to distribute sentiments, which have a tendency to create uneasiness in the minds of the misinformed and weak, (for none other will be influenced by them) especially at this time when the state is hardly recovered from those convulsions,(2) it has so recently experienced.

The real well-wisher to peace and good government cannot but execrate many of the ideas which that would be disturber of tranquillity has lately proclaimed to the publick, through the channels of the Hamps.h.i.+re Gazette, and Independent Chronicle.(3) The man of sense, the true lover of his country, would, if a change of officers was to take place in the government to which he was subject, and men be placed in power, whom he thought not so capable of the task as those who preceded them, endeavour, all in his power, to extenuate the evil, and none but the ruthless incendiary, or the disappointed tool, would, at such a period, conduct in a manner the reverse.

It is well known, that there is a party in this state whose sentiments are in favour of aristocracy; who wish to see the const.i.tution dissolved, and another, which shall be more arbitrary and tyrannical, established on its ruins. Perhaps a few of this description were members of the last administration.(4) If so, most happy for the commonwealth, they are now hurled from seats of power, and unable to carry into effect plans laid for subverting the liberties of the people.-Checked at once in their horrid career-all those hopes blasted which they entertained of concerting measures which would ”afford them matter for derision at a future day,”-they now put on the garb of hypocrisy, and seem to weep for the terrible misfortunes which they pretend are hovering around us. Such characters are, it is hoped, forever banished from places of trust. Some of them pretend to be mighty politicians,-they display a vast knowledge of ancient times-and by their harangues about the conduct of Greece, Rome and Athens, show their acquaintance with the pages of antiquity. In some few instances, however, perhaps they are a little mistaken. The learned Numa says, ”the degenerate Romans banished Cicero for saving the commonwealth.”

Rome did not banish Cicero-a faction, who wished to triumph over the liberties of Rome, exiled that immortal orator; and to that, or a similar one, he at last fell a sacrifice. If a faction can be styled the people, with great propriety do the disappointed aristocraticks, and their tools, in our day, style themselves, the great majority of the people.

If Numa, and others of the like stamp, are politicians, they are very short-sighted ones. If our government is weak, is it policy to weaken it still more by false suggestions, and by a scandalous abuse of our rulers?

by endeavouring to spread a spirit of discontent among the people, and prejudicing their minds against those whom, by their suffrages, they have chosen to take the helm of affairs? If this is policy, Numa is, indeed, an accomplished politician.