| DOCUMENTARY HISTORY DIGITAL, supra note 31. | 1. Richard Henry Lee to George Mason, New York, October 1, 1787. | I might inform you how the Convention plan of Government was entertained by [the Confederation] Congress … Upon due consideration of the Constitution under which we now Act, some of us were clearly of opinion that the 13th article of the Confederation [the alteration power] precluded us from giving an opinion concerning a plan subversive of the present system and eventually forming a New Confederacy[.] |
| 2. Edward Carrington to Thomas Jefferson, New York, October 23, 1787. | I have been honoured with your favor of the 4th. of August. Inclosed [sic] you will receive a Copy of the report of our late federal Convention, which presents, not amendments to the old Confederation, but an entire new Constitution. |
| 3. The Impartial Examiner I, Virginia Independent Chronicle, February 20, 1788. | [Arguing against the new constitution, the Impartial Examiner said the following:] To the free people of VIRGINIA. Countrymen and Fellow-Citizens…. that this system [the Articles] has prevailed but a few years; and now already a change, a fundamental change [the new constitution] therein is meditated… The best regulated governments have their defects, and might perhaps admit of improvement: but the great difficulty consists in clearly discovering the most exceptionable parts and judiciously applying the amendments. A wise nation will, therefore, attempt innovations of this kind with much circumspection. They will view the political fabric, which they have once reared, as the sacred palladium of their happiness;—they will touch it, as a man of tender sensibility toucheth the apple of his eye,—they will touch it with a light, with a trembling—with a cautious hand,—lest they injure the whole structure in endeavoring to reform any of its parts. In small and trivial points alterations may be attempted with less danger; but–where the very nature, the essence of the thing is to be changed: when the foundation itself is to be transformed, and the whole plan entirely new modelled;–should you not hesitate, O Americans? |
| 4. A Federal Republican, Norfolk and Journal, March 5, 1788. | When these Deputies [in the Philadelphia Convention] 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 organization. |
| 5. Federal Farmer, Letters to the Republican, November 8, 1787. | [Below, the Federal Farmer proclaimed that opponents of the new constitution should propose, amendments to the new constitution or propose “some other system of government” as “a substitute.” He did not suggest an amendment to the new constitution could be another entirely new constitution, and he thereby implied amendments could not be complete substitutes.] I admit improper measures are taken against the adoption of the system [the new constitution] as well as for it–all who object to the plan proposed ought to point out the defects objected to, and to propose those amendments with which they can accept it, or to propose some other system of government, that the public mind may be known, and that we may be brought to agree in some system of government, to strengthen and execute the present, or to provide a substitute. |
| 6. A Countryman I (Hugh Hughes), New York Journal November 21, 1787. | [W]hen I consider the original Confederation, and Constitutions of the States which compose the, Union, as well as the Resolutions of several of the States, for calling a Convention to amend the Confederation, which it admits, but not a new one, I am greatly at a Loss to account for the surprizing [sic] Conduct of so many wise Men, as must have composed that honorable Body. In fact, I do not know, at present, whether it can be accounted for; unless it be by supposing a Predetermination of a Majority of the Members to reject their Instructions, and all authority under which they acted…. However, I do not even wish to think so unfavorably of the Majority; but rather, that several of them, were, by different Means, insidiously drawn into the Measures of the more artful and designing Members, who have long envied the great Body of the People, in the United States, the Liberties which they enjoy. |
| 7. A Citizen, New York Journal November 24, 1787. | [T]he business of the conventioneers [in Philadelphia] was then evidently not to form a new constitution for the United States, but to revise and amend the old one, as far as was necessary and consistent with their delegation. |
| 8. A Countryman II (De Witt Clinton), New York Journal, December 13, 1787. | [While arguing against the new constitution by recalling a conversation with his neighbor, a Countryman said the following:] [H]e [my neighbor] said at the same time, that though my letter was very long, I had not been quite plain enough about one thing, for, he said, we should be careful not to give a bit more power to our rulers than we could well help; for they would always find a way to get more fast enough, and they knew how to keep it when they once had it, so that we could never get any part of it back again; and to prove what he said, he put me in mind, that the convention was only sent to amend the old constitution, yet they sat about making a new one, though they had no power to do that at all[.] |
| 9. The Republican Federalist I, Massachusetts Centinel, December 29, 1787. | [T]he delegates [to the Philadelphia Convention] of the State [of Massachusetts] were to report measures not for abolishing but for preserving the articles of Confederation; for amending them; and for increasing their powers consistently with the true republican spirit and genius thereof[.] |
| 10. Agrippa X, Massachusetts Gazette, January 1, 1788. | [Below, Agrippa argued for amending the Articles of Confederation instead of adopting the new constitution. This argument indicated he thought the new constitution was a complete substitute to the Articles and thus not an amendment.] It is easier to amend the old confederation, defective as it has been represented, than it is to correct the new form … By adopting the form proposed by the [Philadelphia] convention, you will have the derision of foreigners, internal misery, and the anathemas of posterity. By amending the present confederation, and granting limited powers to Congress, you secure the admiration of strangers, internal happiness, and the blessings and prosperity of all succeeding generations. Be wise then, and by preserving your freedom, prove, that Heaven bestowed it not in vain. |
| 11. Samuel, Independent Chronicle, January 10, 1788. | This [new] Constitution does not wear the complexion of uniting the nation–but of dividing it. Had we not much better keep on our old ground? The national covenant we are under [the Articles of Confederation], solemnly ratified to be perpetual, and amend that: It is, no doubt, as easy to amend that, as it will be to amend the new one. And this I understand, was the sole purpose the federal Convention was appointed for, viz. To revise the articles of confederation, not to destroy the covenant. Why should we be fond of another revolution so soon? Why should we be fond of such an innovation? |
| 12. Ezra, Massachusetts Centinel, January 23, 1788. | Mr. PRINTER, The question with regard to the adoption or rejection of the [new] federal Constitution, now under consideration of the [Massachusetts] Convention, representing the several corporations of this Commonwealth, and now sitting in the town of Boston, is a question which ought to be maturely debated, and soberly judged upon; should this take place. I imagine the result must be, a rejection of the [new] Constitution … They (the people) are willing the federal Convention, should return to Philadelphia, and accomplish the business for which they were delegated, viz. to amend the Confederation. |
| 13. Agrippa XVI, Massachusetts Gazette, February 5, 1788. | [Below, Agrippa argued that it would be better to amend the Articles of Confederation than to pass and then amend the new constitution. He referred to the new constitution as the “new constitution,” “new one,” and “proposed constitution.” He stated the “confederation amended would be infinitely preferable to the proposed constitution.” All this language suggests he thought the new constitution was a complete substitute to the Articles and thus not an amendment. Otherwise, he would have called the new constitution the “confederation amended.”] I confess that I have yet seen no sufficient reason for not amending the confederation, though I have weighed the argument with candour. I think it would be much easier to amend it than the new constitution. But this is a point on which men of very respectable character differ … Another reason which I had in stating the amendments to be made [to the new constitution], was to shew how nearly those who are for admitting the system with the necessary alterations, agree with those who are for rejecting this system and amending the confederation. In point of convenience, the confederation amended would be infinitely preferable to the proposed constitution. In amending the former, we know the powers granted, and are subject to no perplexity; but in reforming the latter, the business is excessively intricate, and great part of the checks on Congress are lost…. If it [the new constitution] is rejected, the resolve should contain the amendations [sic] of the old system; and accepted, it [the resolve] should contain the corrections of the new one. |
| 14. A Friend to Good Government, Poughkeepsie Country Journal, April 8, 1788. | [Below, a Friend to Good Government argued the new constitution preserved enough of the Articles of Confederation, including the union among states, to be a valid alteration and amendment.] [B]ut it was soon found even before the expiration of the war, that the confederation was too feeble, and very inadequate to the public exigencies…. [T]his give [sic] rise to the Convention that framed the [new] Constitution, in question; they were appointed by the State Legislatures, and empowered by the letter of the authority under which they acted to report such alterations and amendments in the Confederation as would render the federal government adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union—you will here perceive that the latitude given in the instruction, were amply large enough to justify the measures the Convention have taken. The objects in view were the welfare and preservation of the Union, and their business so far to new model our government as to encompass those objects. |
| 15. A Plebeian, An Address to the People of the State of New York, April 17, 1788. | [Below, a Plebeian said that the new constitution was a “new form of government” that was “an entire change in the nature of our federal government.” He implied that the new constitution was thus not an alteration to the Articles of Confederation.] Previous to the meeting of the convention, the subject of a new form of government had been little thought of, and scarcely written upon at all. It is true, it was the general opinion, that some alterations were requisite in the federal system. This subject had been contemplated by almost every thinking man in the union. It had been the subject of many well-written essays, and was the anxious wish of every true friend to America. But it never was in the contemplation of one in a thousand of those who had reflected on the matter, to have an entire change in the nature of our federal government—to alter it from a confederation of states, to that of one entire government, which will swallow up that of the individual states. I will venture to say, that the idea of a government similar to the one proposed, never entered the mind of the legislatures who appointed the convention, and of but very few of the members who composed it, until they had assembled and heard it proposed in that body: much less had the people any conception of such a plan until after it was promulgated. |
| 16. New York Federal Republican Committee (John Lamb) to Richard Henry Lee, New York, May 18, 1788. | [Below, the New York Federal Republican Committee said that alterations to the Confederation are needed and that the new government “proposed in its Room” would be dangerous to liberty. This language suggests the committee thought the new constitution was a complete substitute to the Articles and thus not an alteration.] The System of Government proposed by the late [Philadelphia] Convention to the respective States for their Adoption, involves in it Questions and Consequences in the highest Degree interesting to the People of these States. While we see, in common with our Brethren of the other States, the Necessity of making Alterations in the present existing federal Government [confederation], we cannot but apprehend that the one [the new constitution] proposed in its Room contains in it Principles dangerous to public Liberty and Safety |
| 17. Sydney, New York Journal, June 13, 1788. | TO THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NEWYORK…. [A]s from every circumstance we have reason to infer that the new constitution does not originate from a pure source[.] It was an outrageous violation in the [Philadelphia] convention on the 17th September, 1787, to attempt a consolidation of the union and utterly destroy the confederation, and the sovereignty of particular states, when their powers were restricted “to the sole and express purpose of revising and amending the confederation.” |
| 18. Richard Henry Lee to Samuel Adams Chantilly, April 28, 1788. | [T]hough it were admitted that some amendments to the present confederation would better promote the ends designed by it, why, for that reason, exterminate the present plan [Articles of Confederation], and establish on its ruins another [the new constitution], so replete with power, danger, and hydra-headed mischief? |
| 19. John De Witt II, American Herald, October 29, 1787. | In my last address upon the proceedings of the F[e]deral [Philadelphia] Convention, I endeavored to convince you of the importance of the subject, that it required a cool, dispassionate examination, and a thorough investigation, previous to its adoption—that it [the new constitution] was not a mere revision and amendment of our first Confederation, but a compleat [sic] System for the future government of the United States [.] |
| 20. John De Witt V, American Herald, December 3, 1787. | To the FREE CITIZENS of the COMMONWEALTH of MASSACHUSETTS…. And do you discover a desire in those who wish you to embrace this Government, to inform you of its principles, and the consequences which will probably ensue from such principles—why they [the framers] have taken from you the sinews of your present government, and instead of revising and amending your Confederation; have handed you a new one, contrasted in the plenitude of its powers. |
| 21. Cornelius, Hampshire Chronicle, December 11, 1787. | It may be observed in the first place, that this [new] constitution is not an amendment of the confederation, in the manner therein stipulated; but it is an in tire [entire] subversion of that solemn compact. |
| 22. Elbridge Gerry to the [Massachusetts] General Court New York, October 18, 1787. | As the [Philadelphia] Convention was called for “the sole & express purpose of revising the articles of confederation, & reporting to Congress & the several Legislatures such alterations & provisions as shall render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government, & the preservation of the union,” I did not conceive that these powers extended to the formation of the plan proposed, but the Convention being of a different opinion. I acquiesced in it, being fully convinced that to preserve the union, an efficient Government was indispensibly [sic] necessary; & that it would be difficult to make proper amendments to the articles of confederation. |
| 23. Sidney, Albany Gazette, January 24, 1788. | [T]hey call themselves federalists, when, in the same breath, they do not hesitate to say, they mean to destroy! entirely to destroy the confederation!… upon the start of the late convention, when they refused to be guided by their credentials (which expressly confined their powers to be for the sole purpose of revising and amending the confederation) and presuming to recommend to the people this new instrument[.] |
| 24. Thomas Lee Shippen to William Shippen, Jr., London, November 20, 1787. | They [the Articles of Confederation] had perhaps some defects, but they were easy to be remedied. Impatient of temporary inconveniences, you have rashly overthrown the system which was the gift of Heaven and have lost sight of a great object for which you have so nobly fought and bled in a 7 years war. You had erected a fine and stately fabric whereof some key stones were wanting, and which you should with a modest and reverent hand have endeavored to supply, but instead of that, to amend its [the Articles’] defects you have demolished & destroyed the whole building, and I think sacrilegiously. |
| 25. A Letter of his Excellency, Edmund Randolph, Esquire, On the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787. | [Discussing whether the Articles of Confederation should be altered or there should be a new constitution, Edmund Randolph said the following:] But now, sir, permit me to declare, that in my humble judgment the powers by which alone the blessings of a general government can be accomplished, cannot be interwoven in the confederation without a change of its very essence; or in other words, that the confederation must be thrown aside…My suffrage, as a citizen, is also for additional powers…I saw however that the confederation was tottering from its own weakness, and that the sitting of the convention was a signal of its total insufficiency. I was therefore ready to assent to a scheme of government, which was proposed, and which went beyond the limits of the confederation [including the limit of the alteration power in Article 13], believing, that without being too extensive it would have preserved our tranquility, until that temper and that genius should be collected. [This excerpt was from a letter Randolph wrote explaining why he switched from being an Anti-Federalist to a Federalist. Thereby, even after he changed his mind and became a Federalist, Randolph still held the idea that the new constitution was not an alteration to the Articles. He said that nothing from the Articles was salvageable, that what was required for good government could not be interwoven into the Articles, and that the Articles should be “thrown aside.”] |
| 26. Philadelphiensis IX, Philadelphia Freeman’s Journal, February 6, 1788. | [In the following excerpt, Philadelphiensis called for a national convention to alleviate what he viewed as a political crisis caused by the Philadelphia Convention:] To preserve the peace of the country, every patriot should exert himself at this awful crisis [caused by the Philadelphia Convention], and use his influence to have another federal convention called as soon as possible; either to amend the old articles of confederation, or to frame a constitution on revolution principles, that may secure the freedom of America to the remotest time. [Thus, Philadelphiensis implied that the new constitution had not amended the Articles but was an entirely different system of government.] |
| 27. Unknown author, Massachusetts Gazette, June 12, 1787. | It is thought by many that the [Philadelphia] convention will continue to sit some months, and that they will conclude their deliberations by recommending, not an amendment of the old system, but the introduction of one entirely new. |
| 28. Unknown author, Pennsylvania Herald, December 26, 1787. | The federal [Philadelphia] convention were called together to amend the old constitution, but they chose to make a new one … this the writer does not complain of[.] |
| FRIENDS OF THE CONSTITUTION, supra note 41. | 29. Cato Essay, Country Journal and Advertiser, Poughkeepsie, December 12, 1787, at 345. | The radical defects in the constitution of the confederate government [the Articles of Confederation], was too obvious to escape the notice of a sensible, enlightened people…. It is but a groveling business, and commonly ruinous policy, to repair by peace-meal a shattered defective fabric—it is better to raise the disjointed building to its formation, and begin a new. The confederation was fraught with so many defects, and these so interwoven with its substantial parts, that to have attempted to revise it would have been doing business by the halves, and therefore the Convention with a boldness and decision becoming freemen, wisely carried the remedy to the root of the evil; and have offered a form of government to your consideration on an entire new system—much depends on your present deliberations. |
| ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS, supra note 42. | 30. A Federal Republican, The Power Vested in Congress of Sending Troops for Suppressing Insurrections Will Always Enable Them to Stifle the First Struggles of Freedom, March 5, 1788, at 19. | Upon this principle, a general convention of the United States [the Philadelphia Convention] 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. |
| 31. A Farmer and Planter, On Motivations and Authority of the Founding Fathers, date not provided, at 110. | That they [the framers] exceeded their power is perfectly clear …. The federal [Philadelphia] 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 [the new constitution] to change our government. |
| 32. Patrick Henry, On the Motivations and Authority of the Founding Fathers, date not provided, at 110. | A comparison of the authority under which the [Philadelphia] convention acted, and their form of government, will show that they have despised their delegated power [to alter the Articles of Confederation], 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[.] |
| 2 COMPLETE ANTI-FEDERALIST, supra note 32. | 33. Federal Farmer XVIII, The Quantity of Power the Union Must Possess Is One Thing; The Mode of Exercising the Powers Given Is Quite A Different Consideration, January 23, 1788, at 349. | The states all agreed about seven years ago [in the Articles of Confederation], that the confederation should remain unaltered, unless every state should agree to alterations: but we now see it agreed by the convention, and four states, that the old confederacy shall be destroyed, and a new one … be erected[.] |
| 4 COMPLETE ANTI-FEDERALIST, supra note 32. | 34. A Farmer, (New Hampshire), Freeman’s Oracle and New Hampshire Advertiser, January 11, 1788, at 209. | [Discussing whether states should approve the new constitution, a Farmer said the following:] I think the state of Virginia have ordered their convention to object, amend, or make a new one as they please. I wish every state would do the same, then a continental convention would have a fair chance to frame a constitution most agreeable to the general sense of the people, and then let it be returned for their approbation. [A Farmer thereby distinguished between amending the new constitution and making “a new one.” Thus, it appears he did not think an amendment to the new constitution could be a complete substitute.] |
| 6 COMPLETE ANTI-FEDERALIST, supra note 32. | 35. Address of the Albany Antifederal Committee, New York Journal, April 26, 1788, at 122. | The [Philadelphia] convention, who were appointed for the sole and express purpose of revising and amending the [Articles of] confederation, have taken upon themselves the power of making a new one. They have not formed a federal but a consolidated government[.] |
