a federalist rants about the rabble

“the people of the interior part of these states [new England ] have by far too much political knowledge and too strong a relish for unrestrained freedom, to be governed by our feeble system, and too little acquaintance with real sound policy or rational freedom and too little virtue to govern themselves. They have become too well acquainted with their own weight in the political scale under such governments as ours and have too high a taste for luxury and dissipation to sit down contented with their proper line, when they see others possessed of much more property than themselves. With these feelings and sentiments they will not be quiet while such distinctions exist as to rank and property; and sensible of their own force, they will not rest easy till they posses the reins of government and have divided property with their betters, or they shall be compelled by force to submit to their proper stations and mode of living.” stephen higginson. from "the report of the manuscripts commission of the American historical association December 20, 1896 p.754"

old steve was a "leading boston federalist"...at least that's what the report says...and so does charles beard in "an economic interpretation of the constitution of the united states" on p.303 so i will run with it as at least probable he was...and here he is clearly presaging madison in federalist X ( the report maintains steve was ranting in march 1787 and the first "federalist" did not appear in the "new york independent" until that october ) when he becomes shrill about the political dangers to the elite posed by the "superior force of an interested and overbearing majority" in a system that allows the rabble "far too much political knowledge"...so what did the elite do about this? the convened a convention, ostensibly to reform the articles of confederation, and then overreached that mandate and pulled off a counter-revolution with a document that doesn't so much guarantee as limit rights...bear in mind the "bill of rights" are the first ten amendments to the constitution...those rights weren't even being considered in the convention..they were an afterthought tacked on in an attempt to appease the anti-federalists and make the whole thing fly in the states' ratification conventions...the idea of the "will of the people" being the guiding precepts of the government was an invitation to chaos since a free people would not submit to "their proper stations and mode of living"...an idea which was an anathema to a native born elite...something had to be done or there would be shay's rebellions everywhere, imposing tax moratoriums, debt forgiveness, and paper money...none of which suited the hegemonic culture of the time ( which is pretty much the hegemonic culture of our time )...so this whole democracy business had to be subverted by " a more perfect union"..."more perfect" for whom we might ask...have a shufti at the preamble to the declaration of independence and the preamble to the constitution and note the tone...and, if you have the time, take a look at john locke's "fundamental constitutions of carolina" from march of 1669...he is the putative godfather of the u s constitution and his preamble is dedicated to the hope that "we may avoid erecting a numerous democracy"...he was all for limiting the "will of the people" and had some severe property requirements for voting, much less holding office...an idea that appealed to madison, hamilton, and john jay raving about the "best men"...they perceived a massachucetts tax revolt as an existential crisis and used it to create a system of institutions remarkably resistant to change...the system aint broke...it's working just fine.