Antifederalist 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.