Front Page Titles (by Subject) A Countryman [Roger Sherman] The Letters: II - Friends of the Constitution: Writings of the Other Federalists, 1787-1788
Return to Title Page for Friends of the Constitution: Writings of the “Other” Federalists, 1787-1788
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
“A Countryman” [Roger Sherman] The Letters: II - Colleen A. Sheehan, Friends of the Constitution: Writings of the “Other” Federalists, 1787-1788 
Friends of the Constitution: Writings of the “Other” Federalists, 1787-1788, edited by Colleen A. Sheehan and Gary L. McDowell (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998).
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.
The copyright to this edition, in both print and electronic forms, is held by Liberty Fund, Inc.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
“A Countryman” [Roger Sherman]
New Haven Gazette, 22 November 1787
A delegate to both Continental Congresses and member of the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence, Sherman was influential at the Constitutional Convention, wrote essays in favor of the Constitution, and supported the Constitution during ratification in Connecticut. Afterward he served in the House of Representatives (1789-91) and the Senate (1791-93).
To thePeopleof Connecticut.
It is fortunate that you have been but little distressed with that torrent of impertinence and folly, with which the newspaper politicians have overwhelmed many parts of our country.
It is enough that you should have heard, that one party has seriously urged, that we should adopt the New Constitution because it has been approved by Washington and Franklin: and the other, with all the solemnity of apostolic address to Men, Brethren, Fathers, Friends and Countrymen, have urged that we should reject, as dangerous, every clause thereof, because that Washington is more used to command as a soldier, than to reason as a politician—Franklin is old—others are young—and Wilson is haughty. You are too well informed to decide by the opinion of others, and too independent to need a caution against undue influence.
Of a very different nature, tho’ only one degree better than the other reasoning, is all that sublimity of nonsense and alarm, that has been thundered against it in every shape of metaphoric terror, on the subject of a billof rights, the liberty of the press, rights of conscience, rights of taxation and election, trials in the vicinity, freedom of speech, trial by jury, and a standing army. These last are undoubtedly important points, much too important to depend on mere paper protection. For, guard such privileges by the strongest expressions, still if you leave the legislative and executive power in the hands of those who are or may be disposed to deprive you of them—you are but slaves. Make an absolute monarch—give him the supreme authority, and guard as much as you will by bills of right, your liberty of the press, and trial by jury;—he will find means either to take them from you, or to render them useless.
The only real security that you can have for all your important rights must be in the nature of your government. If you suffer any man to govern you who is not strongly interested in supporting your privileges, you will certainly lose them. If you are about to trust your liberties with people whom it is necessary to bind by stipulation, that they shall not keep a standing army, your stipulation is not worth even the trouble of writing. No bill of rights ever yet bound the supreme power longer than the honey moon of a new married couple, unless the rulers were interested in preserving the rights; and in that case they have always been ready enough to declare the rights, and to preserve them when they were declared.—The famous English Magna Charta is but an act of parliament, which every subsequent parliament has had just as much constitutional power to repeal and annul, as the parliament which made it had to pass it at first. But the security of the nation has always been, that their government was so formed, that at least one branch of their legislature must be strongly interested to preserve the rights of the nation.
You have a bill of rights in Connecticut (i.e.) your legislature many years since enacted that the subjects of this state should enjoy certain privileges. Every assembly since that time, could, by the same authority, enact that the subjects should enjoy none of those privileges; and the only reason that it has not long since been so enacted, is that your legislature were as strongly interested in preserving those rights as any of the subjects; and this is your only security that it shall not be so enacted at the next session of assembly: and it is security enough.
Your General Assembly under your present constitution are supreme. They may keep troops on foot in the most profound peace, if they think proper. They have heretofore abridged the trial by jury in some causes, and they can again in all. They can restrain the press, and may lay the most burdensome taxes if they please, and who can forbid? But still the people are perfectly safe that not one of these events shall take place so long as the members of the General assembly are as much interested, and interested in the same manner as the other subjects.
On examining the new proposed constitution, there can not be a question, but that there is authority enough lodged in the proposed federal Congress, if abused, to do the greatest injury. And it is perfectly idle to object to it, that there is no bill of rights, or to propose to add to it a provision that a trial by jury shall in no case be omitted, or to patch it up by adding a stipulation in favor of the press, or to guard it by removing the paltry objection to the right of Congress to regulate the time and manner of elections.
If you can not prove by the best of all evidence, viz. by the interest of the rulers, that this authority will not be abused, or at least that those powers are not more likely to be abused by the Congress, than by those who now have the same powers, you must by no means adopt the constitution:—No, not with all the bills of rights and all the stipulations in favour of the people that can be made.
But if the members of Congress are to be interested just as you and I are, and just as the members of our present legislatures are interested, we shall be just as safe, with even supreme power, (if that were granted) in Congress, as in the General Assembly. If the members of Congress can take no improper step which will not affect them as much as it does us, we need not apprehend that they will usurp authorities not given them to injure that society of which they are a part.
The sole question, (so far as any apprehension of tyranny and oppression is concerned) ought to be, how are Congress formed? how far are the members interested to preserve your rights? how far have you a controul over them?—Decide this, and then all the questions about their power may be dismissed for the amusement of those politicians whose business it is to catch flies, or may occasionally furnish subjects for George Bryan’s1pomposity, or the declamations of Cato2 —An Old Whig3 —Son of Liberty4 —Brutus5 —Brutus junior6 —An Officer of the Continental Army,7 —the more contemptible Timoleon8 —and the residue of that rabble of writers.
[1. ]For information on George Bryan, see Friends, 37 n. 2.
[2. ]Cato was a pseudonym especially popular with the Anti-Federalists. See Storing, 2:6, 5:7, and 5:10; Essays V, VI, and VII by Cato are in Allen, 159-69.
[3. ]For biographical information on An Old Whig, see Friends, 167 n. 2.
[4. ]A Son of Liberty’s list of objections first appeared in the New York Journal on 8 November 1787. See Storing, 6:2.
[5. ]Among the most important of Anti-Federalist writings, the essays of Brutus were published in the New York Journal between October 1787 and April 1788. The essays of Brutus generally are attributed to Robert Yates; however, Storing questions this attribution. See Storing, 2:9; Essays I, III, IV, V, XI, XII, and XV are in Allen, 102-17, 201-23, and 269-74.
[6. ]This essay was published in the New York Journal on 8 November 1787. See Storing, 6:3.
[7. ]For information see Friends, 113 n. 1.
[8. ]The letter of Timoleon was published in an “extraordinary” issue of the New York Journal on 1 November 1787. It was subsequently reprinted and distributed in the Hudson River Valley and Connecticut. See DH, 13:534-38.