New York-Journal:
That the new constitution cannot make a union of states, but only of individuals, and purposes the beginning of
one new society, one new government in all matters, is evident from these considerations, viz: It marks no line
of distinction between separate state matters, and what would of right come under the control of the powers
ordained in a union of states. To say that no line could be drawn, is giving me the argument. For what can be
more absurd than to say, that states are united where a general power is established that extends to all objects
of government, i.e., all that exist among the people who make the compact? And is it not clear that Congress
have the right (by the constitution), to make general laws for proving all acts, records, proceedings, and
the effect thereof, in what are now called the states? Is it possible after this that any state act can exist,
or any public business be done, without the direction and sanction of Congress, or by virtue of some subordinate authority.....
Carlisle, PA:
The present is an active period. Europe is in a ferment breaking their constitutions; America is in a similar state, making
a constitution. For this valuable purpose a convention was appointed, consisting of such as excelled in
wisdom and knowledge, who met in Philadelphia last May. For my own part, I was so smitten with the character
of the members, that I had assented to their production, while it was yet in embryo. And I make no doubt
but every good republican did so too. But how great was my surprise, when it appeared with such a venerable
train of names annexed to its tail, to find some of the people under different signatures-such as Centinel, Old Whig,
Brutus, etc. - daring to oppose it, and that too with barefaced arguments, obstinate reason and stubborn truth. This is
certainly a piece of the most extravagant impudence to presume to contradict the collected wisdom of the United States; or to
suppose a body, who engrossed the whole wisdom of the continent.....
|
|
It is true that the Continental Convention have directed their proposed constitution to be laid
before a Convention of Delegates to be chosen in each state "for their assent and ratification,"
which seems to preclude the idea of any power in the several Conventions of proposing any alterations;
or, indeed, even of rejecting the plan proposed if they should disapprove of it. Still, however, the
question recurs, what authority the late Convention had to bind the people of the United States to any
particular form of government, or to forbid them to adopt such form of government, as they should think
fit. I know it is a language frequent in the mouths of some heaven-born Phaetons among us-who, like the
son of Apollo, think themselves entitled to guide the chariot of the sun-that common people have no right
to judge of the affairs of government; that they are not fit for it; that they should leave these matters
to their superiors. This, however, is not the language of men of real understanding....
The Hampshire Gazette:
We the subscribers being of the number, who did not assent to the ratification of the federal constitution, under
consideration in the late state convention, held at Boston, to which we were called by the suffrages of the
corporations to which we respectively belong-beg leave, through the channel of your paper, to lay before the
public in general, and our constituents in particular, the reasons of our dissent, and the principles which
governed us in our decision of this important question....
 
|
|