Elbridge Gerry: Letter to the Massachusetts Legislature on the U.S. Constitution

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

Those who considered whether Massachusetts should ratify the U.S. Constitution were as wary as any others about what sort of government would emerge from the document. In general, the delegates knew what they did not want: the lack of direction that had emerged from the Articles of Confederation. Thus, in their consideration of the Constitution, which seemed to offer a more unified nation, they wanted to hear from Gerry, an outspoken opponent of the document who was also one of the most respected statesmen from Massachusetts. In response to a request to declare his objections to the Constitution, Gerry wrote an open letter to the legislature, dated October 18, 1787, providing a summary of concerns that were not only his own but also those of many who feared that the lack of a bill of rights would make the new Constitution an outline for tyranny.

Gerry had been publicly expressing his opinions at least since 1765, when he advocated passive resistance to the British government, and he had developed an approach to presenting his views that was comprehensive but direct. That he should begin his objections to the Constitution with the phrase “To this system I give my dissent” was typical of his writing. When he complains “that there is no adequate provision for a representation of the people—that they have no security for the right of election,” he refers to senators being chosen by legislatures rather than by direct vote by the public. He had also made widely known his opinion that federal officers, especially in the House of Representatives, should face reelection every year. The obvious objection to this was that annual elections would be too unwieldy—that federal representatives would not have time to settle into their duties and get work done—but this is, in fact, what Gerry wanted; he wanted representatives to be made constantly uncomfortable so as to be inhibited from making laws that would increase their chances of holding their political positions semipermanently. He wanted the American people to have frequent opportunities to throw out politicians who failed to work for the public good.

An interesting aspect of this document is Gerry's noting that he had objected to the Constitutional Convention's choice to set aside the Articles of Confederation in favor of writing an entirely new document but had “acquiesced” in the decision of his colleagues. Another person might have walked out of the convention in protest, but Gerry was an advocate of constant engagement in the political process. He believed that if a democracy is to fully represent its citizens, those who lose in disputes over courses of action must not only acquiesce but also continue to participate, whether to further the collective effort or to yet seek to persuade people to their points of view.

The bulk of Gerry's argument in his letter to the Massachusetts legislature is devoted to his suspicion of big government, which is why he mentions the word nation as summarizing his apprehensions. He had wanted a government in which the individual states would handle almost all social policy but would be federated for the purposes of foreign policy and the waging of war. In being that of a nation, Gerry fears that the new government will be a central government that will dominate the states, being able to tell individual states what they can do. Rather than several states telling the federal government what it may do, the new government would supersede all state boundaries, making uniform laws that all states must follow. These circumstances, Gerry thought, could allow a small number of political leaders to form a tyranny under which states could not protect the rights of their people.