|surprise in which we have been involved on this subject, we ever suffered ourselves to imagine.|
|2.||When the conventions have stated these objections and amendments, let them transmit them to congress, and adjourn, praying that congress will direct another convention to be called from the different states, to consider of these objections and amendments, and pledging themselves to abide by whatever decision shall be made by such future convention on the subject-- whether it be to amend the proposed constitution or to reject any alterations, and ratify it as it stands.|
|3.||If a new convention of the United States should meet, and revise the proposed constitution, let us agree to abide by their decision. It is past a doubt that every good citizen of America pants for an efficient federal government. I have no doubt we shall concur at last in some plan of continental government, even if many people could imagine exceptions to it. But if the exceptions which are made at present shall be maturely considered, and even be pronounced by our future representatives as of no importance (which I trust they will not), even in that case I have no doubt that almost every man will give up his own private opinion and concur in that decision.|
|4.||If, by any means, another continental convention should fail to meet, then let the conventions of the several states again assemble and at last decide the great solemn question, whether we shall adopt the constitution now proposed or reject it. And whenever it becomes necessary to decide upon this point one, at least, who from the beginning has been invariably anxious for the liberty and independence of this country, will concur in adopting and supporting this constitution, rather than none; though, I confess, I could easily imagine some other form of confederation which I should think better entitled to my hearty approbation, and indeed I am not afraid of a worse.|
AN OLD WHIG
DO CHECKS AND BALANCES REALLY SECURE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE?
"There is no doubt at all that many of the Anti-Federalists did regard the Constitution as dangerous and aristocratic, and its framers and supporters likewise," Cecelia M. Kenyon has commented. "They were acutely suspicious of it because if its class origin and were on the lookout for every evidence of bias in favor of the 'aristocrats' who framed it." ( "Men of Little Faith: The Anti-Federalists on the Nature of Representative Government," "The William and Mary Quarterly", January, 1955, 3rd Series, XII, no. 1, pp. 5-6fn.) As Miss Kenyon pointed out, this fact does not necessarily prove Charles Beard right; and there is much evidence that his thesis is in fact wrong. Antifederalist apprehension of aristocratic rule was primarily political in nature, not economic.
The following satirical anti-aristocratic essay is from a pamphlet by "ARISTOCROTIS," The Government of Nature Delineated; Or An Exact