The Debate on the Constitution

Alexander Hamilton's Conjectures About the New Constitution

Hamilton writes a brief essay speculating whether the Constitution will or won't be adopted, what its assets and liabilities are relative to adoption, and the various courses the country will take depending on the outcome. This is not known to have been published or distributed in its time.

"In this view of the subject it is difficult to form any judgment whether the plan will be adopted or rejected. It must be essentially matter of conjecture. The present appearances and all other circumstances considered the probability seems to be on the side of its adoption."

He offers certain possible futures based on whether the constitution is adopted or not. One scenario has a reunion with Great Britain and the establishment of a monarchy headed by an offshoot of the British Royal Family. Perhaps the most prescient is his foresight on the issue of state's rights.

"[The federal government] may then triumph altogether over the state governments and reduce them to entire subordination, dividing the large states into smaller districts. The organs of the general government may also acquire additional strength. If this should not be the case, in the course of a few years, it is probable that the contests about the boundaries of power between the particular governments and the general government and the momentum of the larger states in such contests will produce a dissolution of the Union. This after all seems to be the most likely result."

After a great deal of conjecture, Hamilton reminds himself and his audience to be humble in the face of uncertainty.

"But it is almost arrogance in so complicated a subject, depending so entirely on the incalculable fluctuations of the human passions, to attempt even a conjecture about the event. It will be Eight or Nine months before any certain judgment can be formed respecting the adoption of the Plan."

"Z" Replies to Franklin's Speech, Independent Chronicle (Boston), December 6, 1787

"Z" disagrees totally with Franklin and writes an article in a Boston newspaper making impassioned criticism of Franklin's Conclusion Speech. He strikes at Franklin's notion that a governmental form with faults can be otherwise well administered so as to be a Blessing for the people.

"But are we to accept a form of government which we do not entirely approve of, merely in hopes that it will be administered well? Does not every man know, that nothing is more liable to be abused than power. Power, without a check, in any hands, is tyranny and such powers, in the hands of even good men, so infatuating is the nature of it, will probably be wantonly, if not tyrannically exercised."

An early voice for the Bill of Rights, "Z" speculates what might happen if certain rights are not enumerated in the Constitution.

"If the rights of conscience, for instance, are not sacredly reserved to the people, what security will there be, in case the government should have in their heads a predilection for any one sect in religion? what will hinder the civil power from erecting a national system of religion, and committing the law to a set of lordly priests, reaching, as the great Dr. Mayhew expressed it, from the desk to the skies? An Hierarchy which has ever been the grand engine in the hand of civil tyranny..."

Benjamin Franklin's Speech at the Conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, September 17, 1787.

In this speech, Franklin declares his intent to support the Constitution, his reasoning behind his support, and implores his colleagues to support the document unanimously.

Franklin makes a compelling argument that nothing wrought of human hands can come out perfectly.

"I doubt too whether any Convention we can obtain, may make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected?"

He also states that while he finds "faults" within the Constitution, that these manifest merely his opinion which is subject to change over time. He reminds his audience that no one person or group has a monopoly on truth.

"Most Men indeed as well as most Sects in Religion, think themselves in Possession of all Truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far Error. Steele, a Protestant, in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only Difference between our two Churches in their Opinions of the Certainty of their Doctrine, is, the Roman Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the Wrong."

He puts his faith in a governmental form whose possible imperfections are outweighed if that government is "well administered."

"Thus, I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best. ---- I hope therefore that for our own Sakes, as Part of the People, and for the Sake of our Prosperity, we shall act heartily & unanimously in recommending this Constitution, wherever our Influence may extend, and turn our future Thoughts and Endeavors to the Means of having it well administered."

The notes reference Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man for the notion a well administered government.