Roger Sherman: “Letters of a Countryman” (November 22, 1787)

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

One of the key sticking points in the states about the new Constitution was its lack of a bill of rights—provisions that would explicitly protect the freedom of speech, religion, and the press; the right to trial by jury and the right to bear arms; protection against self-incrimination, illegal search and seizures, and cruel and unusual punishment; and other rights. Even during the convention, many delegates argued that the Constitution was incomplete without such provisions. Although some states quickly ratified the Constitution, it was by no means certain that the necessary nine out of thirteen states would do so. Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts, in particular, were the scenes of contentious and bitter debate. Virginia, over the objections of Patrick Henry and others, finally ratified the Constitution on June 25, 1788, but the state submitted with its ratification a series of recommended amendments that were, in effect, a bill of rights. New Hampshire and New York took similar steps, as did Massachusetts, which insisted that the first U.S. Congress immediately pass a bill of rights.

As with the issue of ratification generally, the issue of a bill of rights inspired pamphlets, letters to newspapers, and other documents debating the issue. Following the custom of the time, many of these documents were published under pseudonyms, with many authors choosing the names of ancient Roman statesmen; in his “Letters of a Countryman” from November 22, 1787, Sherman refers to a number of these people in his final paragraph, including “Brutus,” who was probably Robert Yates of New York. One of the leading opponents of a bill of rights was Alexander Hamilton. In Federalist 84, Hamilton, writing under the name Publius, argued that under the new Constitution as submitted, the people were not surrendering their rights. He stated that a bill of rights, such as that implied by the Magna Carta, was necessary only to protect citizens from monarchs who could by fiat usurp those rights. He also argued that a bill of rights was dangerous, for it would carve out exceptions to powers that the Constitution did not grant, thereby implying that the Constitution did, in fact, grant such powers. Essentially, Hamilton argued, a bill of rights could backfire on the nation's citizens.

Sherman entered the debate with his “Letters of a Countryman,” opposing inclusion of a bill of rights or making it a condition of ratification. He makes his opposition clear in the third paragraph, where he refers to the “sublimity of nonsense and alarm, that has been thundered against [the Constitution] in every shape of metaphoric terror, on the subject of a bill of rights.” He argues that a bill of rights is nothing but a “paper protection” and that Congress and the president would continue to hold powers that would enable them to deprive citizens of their rights.

Beginning with the fourth paragraph, Sherman makes his argument. He states that the only real protection people have is the nature of their government. He elaborates by noting that “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.” He notes that even the Magna Carta, the thirteenth-century progenitor of modern constitutions, was essentially an act of Parliament, not a constitutionally enshrined bill of rights. In the next paragraph, he points out that Connecticut has a bill of rights but that the state legislature could, if it wanted to, deprive the state's citizens of those rights. In the final paragraphs, Sherman concludes that the only way to ensure liberty is by structuring a federal government in such a way that the citizens have control over the legislature, thus ensuring that the legislature does not pass laws that would deny the liberties that a bill of rights would contain.

It should be noted that Sherman, like others who opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights, was not in any way opposed to the rights themselves. Sherman wanted to see the new Constitution that he had helped write ratified. His opposition was to those who wanted to make ratification dependent on the inclusion of a bill of rights that he did not think was necessary. The Constitution was ratified without a bill of rights, but on June 8, 1789, James Madison submitted a bill of rights to the first Congress, thereby preempting the need for another constitutional convention that might undo the work of the first. On December 15, 1791, when Virginia ratified ten of the twelve proposed amendments, they became part of the U.S. Constitution.