Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow TO ARCHIBALD STUART. va. hist. soc. mss. - The Writings, vol. 5 (1787-1790)

Return to Title Page for The Writings, vol. 5 (1787-1790)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

TO ARCHIBALD STUART. va. hist. soc. mss. - James Madison, The Writings, vol. 5 (1787-1790) [1904]

Edition used:

The Writings of James Madison, comprising his Public Papers and his Private Correspondence, including his numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed, ed. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900). Vol. 5.

Part of: The Writings of James Madison, 9 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


TO ARCHIBALD STUART.va. hist. soc. mss.

N. Y. Oct. 30, 1787.

Dear Sir,—

I have been this day favored with yours of the 21st instant & beg you to accept my acknowledgements for it. I am truly sorry to find so many respectable names on your list of adversaries to the federal Constitution.1 The diversity of opinion on so interesting a subject among men of equal integrity & discernment is at once a melancholy proof of the fallibility of the human judgement and of the imperfect progress yet made in the Science of government.1 Nothing is more common here and I presume the case must be the same with you than to see companies of intelligent people equally divided, and equally earnest in maintaining on one side that the general government will overwhelm the state governments, and on the other hand that it will be a prey to their encroachments; on one side that the structure of the government is too firm & too strong, and on the other that it partakes too much of the weakness & instability of the Governments of the particular states. What is the proper conclusion from all this? That unanimity is not to be expected in any great political question. That the danger is probably exaggerated on each side, when an opposite danger is concerned on the opposite side, that if any constitution is to be established by deliberation & choice it must be examined with many allowances, and must be compared not with the theory, which each individual may frame in his own mind, but with the system which it is meant to take the place of; and with any other which there might be a possibility of obtaining.

I cannot judge so well as yourself of the propriety of mixing with an adoption of the Federal Constitution a revision of that of the State. If the latter could be effected without risks or inconveniency of the former, it is no doubt desirable.1 The practicability of this will depend upon the unanimity with which it could be undertaken. I should doubt extremely whether the experiment could safely be made. Might not the blending of those two things together unite those who are unfriendly to either and thus strengthen the opposition you have to contend with? In case the general government should be established it will perhaps be easy to follow it with an amendment of our own Constitution. The example will have some influence by proving the practicability & safety of such experiments. And if the convention think fit they may lay a proper train of themselves for bringing the matter about.

The public mind in this quarter seems not finally settled as yet with regard to the proposed Constitution. The first impression has been every where favorable except in Rd. Island. Nor is there any reason to suspect that the generality of States will not embrace the measure.

The character of this State has long been antifederal & [it] is known that a very powerful party continue so. Penna. is also divided into parties but it is supposed that a majority will pretty certainly [be] on the right side.

With great respect & regard I am Dr. Sir

Yr obt Servt

[1 ]Among the opponents was Joseph Jones. He wrote to Madison from Richmond Oct. 29, 1787, that he saw many objections to the Constitution. The Senate was a legislative, executive and in some respects a judicial body, which was bad. The Senate and President could in some cases even legislate for the Union without the concurrence of the popular branch, and would prove an overmatch for the popular branch. There was strong objection to the appellate jurisdiction over law and fact of the Supreme Court. He should have been pleased to see a bill of rights. The advocates of the new plan were rather diminishing than increasing in number. Nov. 27, Jones wrote that he would receive the Constitution with reluctance.—Chicago Hist. Soc. MSS.

[1 ]James McClurg wrote to Madison from Richmond October 31:

“I am to thank you for the favor you did me in inclosing a copy of the new constitution; which has ever since been the principle topic of political conversation in every company. It was at first reciev’d with a prepossession in it’s favor almost enthusiastic, in our towns especially. The circumstances, however, which in this state particy. tended to excite suspicion & jealousy, have caused this disposition to subside sooner than it might otherwise have done; & every man’s mind is turn’d to a subtle investigation of ye plan. Various indeed are the objections made to it; but those which strike only the most moderate & most federal, are confin’d chiefly to the Senate. Nor do they object to the equal representation of ye States in ye Senate, so much as to ye additional weight thrown into that branch of ye Legislature, by combining it with ye Presidt. in ye high executive offices of Government. It is supposed that ye obligation of a common Interest may connect them in a dangerous Junto; & on this account they imagine the Senate to be ye worst court that could have been contriv’d for the Impeachment of ye President. They conceive too that ye Senators, in their executive business, may become liable to Impeachment, tho’ they cannot see by what court they can be tried.

“I see, in a pamphlet publish’d at Philada in defence of ye Constitution, a serious objection made to ye clause which empowers Congress to regulate the manner, time, & place, of chusing ye representatives of ye people in ye several States. This has been reechoed here; & it has not been easy to find a sufficient [reason] for it’s insertion. Some have objected also to the Influence of the Presidt in the house of representatives as capable of producing his reelection, even when the majority of ye constitutional electors are against him.

“These are objections made by men heartily dispos’d towards an energetic federal government, & conceiving yt defects in its frame must be equally obnoxious to ye people of all ye States, they hope to see them amended. For my part, I am so fearful of it’s Loss, that I should be willing to trust ye remedy of it’s defects to ye reason moderation & experience of ye future Congress. By the by, what is to become of the State debts, when all ye Sources of revenue in ye States are seiz’d by Congress?”—Mad. MSS.

[1 ]See ante, vol. ii., 54, n., for Madison’s objections to the state constitution in his speech in the Assembly June, 1784. The constitution was not amended till 1829.

[1 ]From Madison’s Works.