Antifederalist 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 be 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