{"id":18166,"date":"2026-01-21T21:00:21","date_gmt":"2026-01-22T02:00:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/?p=18166"},"modified":"2026-02-03T10:55:11","modified_gmt":"2026-02-03T15:55:11","slug":"melancton-smiths-watershed-speech","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/melancton-smiths-watershed-speech\/","title":{"rendered":"Melancton Smith’s watershed speech"},"content":{"rendered":"

Melancton Smith\u2019s watershed speech<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The \u201cBrutus<\/em> \u2013 Melancton Smith Authorship Thesis\u201d (Part 5)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Adam P. Levinson, Esq. & John P. Kaminski, PhD<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

During the summer of 1788 the New York ratification convention witnessed a clash of titans. For six weeks Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist \u201cchampion,\u201d[1]<\/a> squared off against his \u201cchief interlocutor,\u201d[2]<\/a> Antifederalist Melancton Smith. This \u201cbattle of giants\u201d[3]<\/a> was not merely a contest between Hamilton and Smith. New York\u2019s convention also matched Publius<\/em> against Brutus<\/em>, arguably two of the most important essayists during the debate over the ratification of the Constitution.<\/p>\n

While his identity has been disputed for decades, historians widely agree that Brutus<\/em> was \u201cthe most formidable antagonist of the immortal Publius<\/em>.\u201d[4]<\/a> When Alexander Hamilton decided to recruit John Jay and James Madison to write The<\/em> Federalist<\/em> in the fall of 1787 he was responding to the letters of Brutus<\/em>.[5]<\/a> Madison described Brutus<\/em> as a \u201ccombatant\u201d whose critique \u201cstrikes at the foundation\u201d of the proposed Constitution \u201cwith considerable address & plausibility.\u201d[6]<\/a> In hindsight this makes perfect sense as Melancton Smith has been described as the \u201cmost cogent anti-Federalist of his state,\u201d the \u201cPatrick Henry of New York.\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

During the months leading into the New York ratification convention, Brutus<\/em> skirmished pseudonymously with Publius<\/em> in the New York newspapers.[8]<\/a> In addition to writing the sixteen Brutus<\/em> essays, Melancton Smith also wrote a highly influential pamphlet as A Plebeian<\/em>.[9]<\/a> Accordingly, when the New York convention assembled in Poughkeepsie, Smith (Brutus<\/em>) was the most qualified spokesman to face off against his nemesis Hamilton (Publius<\/em>). As set forth below, newly uncovered manuscripts help prove that Melancton Smith was Brutus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The debate in the New York ratification convention was arguably the hardest fought struggle in any of the state ratification conventions that considered the newly proposed Constitution in 1787-1791.[10]<\/a> In addition to being the longest lasting convention, New York produced the largest number of proposed amendments.[11]<\/a> New York was also the only state to formally propose a second constitutional convention.[12]<\/a> The New York ratification convention thus became one of \u201cthe finest examples of political debate in American history.\u201d[13]<\/a><\/p>\n

Overview of Brutus<\/em> Attribution<\/p>\n

This blog post concludes a multi-part series exploring Brutus\u2019 <\/em>identity. The \u201cBrutus<\/em> \u2013 Melancton Smith Authorship Thesis\u201d<\/strong> argues that Brutus<\/em> was Melancton Smith, Alexander Hamilton\u2019s chief antagonist at the New York ratification convention. The \u201cBrutus <\/em>\u2013 Melancton Smith Authorship Thesis\u201d<\/strong> is based on a detailed review of decades of correspondence, pamphlets, legislative history, records of the New York ratification convention, and recently uncovered speeches by Smith. Much of this work is made possible after the completion of the monumental forty-seven volumes of the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution<\/em> (DHRC<\/em>).<\/p>\n

Part 1<\/strong><\/a><\/span> provided an overview of existing scholarship and a summary of new evidence compiled by Statutesandstories.com in collaboration with John P. Kaminski. Part 2<\/strong><\/a><\/span> focused on pre-authorship <\/em>attribution evidence arising prior to the printing of the Brutus<\/em> essays from 18 October 1787 to 10 April 1788. Part 3 <\/strong><\/a><\/span>continued with a discussion of post-authorship<\/em> attribution evidence primarily arising from Smith\u2019s speeches at the New York ratification convention. Part 4<\/strong><\/a><\/span> focused on Smith\u2019s syllogistical reasoning style which aligns with Brutus<\/em>. Part 5 below discusses newly uncovered convention speeches by Melancton Smith which further confirm Smith\u2019s identity as Brutus<\/em>. In particular, Smith\u2019s recently uncovered 23 July speech offers a fascinating window into Smith\u2019s thinking during a seminal moment in the ratification campaign.<\/p>\n

In the spring of 2025, Statutesandstories.com released a related seven-part series about the authorship of the Antifederalist Federal Farmer<\/em>. Historians have long recognized that Brutus<\/em> and the Federal Farmer<\/em> were two of the most important Antifederalist authors. For many years Federal Farmer<\/em> was believed to have been Richard Henry Lee. In 1974, historian Gordon S. Wood challenged this longstanding attribution, but did not offer an alternative author. In 1988, John P. Kaminski argued that Elbridge Gerry was Federal Farmer<\/em>.[14]<\/a> Click here<\/span><\/a><\/strong> for a link to the F<\/em><\/strong>ederal Farmer <\/em>\u2013 E<\/strong>lbridge Gerry A<\/strong>uthorship T<\/strong>hesis (\u201cFEAT\u201d)<\/strong><\/a><\/span> which surveys newly uncovered evidence that Gerry was in fact Federal Farmer<\/em>. With Gerry confirmed as Federal Farmer<\/em>, the field is cleared for Melancton Smith to be recognized as Brutus.<\/em><\/p>\n

Significance of Smith\u2019s pivot to support ratification on July 23, 1788<\/em><\/p>\n

Antifederalists at the New York convention outnumbered Federalists by a margin of more than two to one.[15]<\/a> Despite this overwhelming majority, near the end of the convention Smith pivoted to support unconditional ratification. In a stunning speech on 23 July 1788, which was no doubt one of the most dramatic moments of the convention, Smith announced the reasons for his change of heart. In beautifully written prose Smith asked whether New York will \u201cJoin the great American family,\u201d or \u201cshall we withdraw ourselves from It and seek our fortunes separately.\u201d Smith answered that New York should take its place in the \u201cfamily mansion\u201d \u201cwith brotherly kindness and confidence,\u201d relying on \u201ccommon interests and common prudence\u201d to obtain an improved Constitution.[16]<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

When Smith and his Antifederalist colleagues entered the New York convention they strenuously opposed ratifying what they considered a defective constitution unless it was accompanied by \u201cconditional amendments.\u201d Nevertheless, on July 23rd<\/sup> Smith advocated for ratification of the Constitution with \u201crecommendatory amendments,\u201d to be adopted through the Constitution\u2019s amendment procedure in Article V. Although he pivoted to support unconditional ratification, Smith believed that \u201che was consistent in his principles and conduct.\u201d In Smith\u2019s mind, he was pursuing \u201chis important and favourite object of amendments with equal zeal as before, but in a practicable way which was only in the mode prescribed by the Constitution.\u201d For Smith, \u201camendments to the constitution were necessary\u201d and it was \u201cour duty to take the most Effectual and prudent means in our power to Obtain them.\u201d Smith\u2019s decision thus followed \u201cequally the dictate of reason and of duty to quit his first ground, and advance so far as that they might be received into the Union.\u201d[17]<\/a><\/p>\n

Under Smith\u2019s leadership, the Constitution was ratified by a razor thin vote of 30 \u2013 27. Smith successfully convinced a dozen Antifederalists to support ratification \u201cin full confidence\u201d that recommended amendments would be considered in a second constitutional convention.[18]<\/a> New York\u2019s decision to join the union as the eleventh state was \u201carguably the nation\u2019s most weighty vote in favor of ratification of the Constitution in 1787.\u201d[19]<\/a><\/p>\n

Although his role at the New York convention has largely been forgotten, Smith\u2019s July 23rd<\/sup> convention speech is properly viewed as a watershed moment in American constitutional history:<\/p>\n

Even though much of Melancton Smith’s life lies in obscurity, for a few days in July, 1788, he came as near as any man ever does to holding the fate of the nascent American nation in his hands. When he broke with most of his friends and political allies to support ratification of the Federal Constitution, he ensured New York’s adherence to the new Union and averted possible civil war, at the cost of his own political career.[20]<\/a><\/p>\n

As explained by his biographer, Smith \u201cperformed an act of high statesmanship and of the greatest importance to the successful establishment of the new Union.\u201d[21]<\/a> Contemporary sources also recognized the importance of Smith\u2019s pivot to support ratification:<\/p>\n

I believe much praise is due M Smith, he found the improbability of having amendments made by the states previous to its becoming a government, & gave up his opinion to what he thought necessary for the tranquillity & advantage of the state. I do not think that he is any more convinced than when he left town. his conduct has been displeasing to many of the anti\u2019s\u2014his moderation & the abilities he has shown in convention has in some degree compensated with the federalists for his opposition.[22]<\/a><\/p>\n

Henry Knox, the Confederation\u2019s Secretary at War, praised Smith in a letter to George Washington. Knox explained the significance of Smith\u2019s selfless vote which helped unify the nation:<\/p>\n

Messrs Jay Hamilton and the rest of the federalists have derived great honor from their temperate and wise conduct during the tedious debates on this subject\u2014nor ought those Gentlemen who were opposed to the constitution in the first instance, but afterwards voted for its adoption be deprived of their due share of praise for their candor and wisdom in assuming different conduct when it became apparent that a perseverance in opposition would most probably terminate in Civil War, for such and nothing short of it were the prospects.[23]<\/a><\/p>\n

Knox\u2019s concern over a possible civil war was not without foundation. Smith feared that New York City and the southern counties might secede from New York State if the Poughkeepsie convention rejected ratification.[24]<\/a> Judged by historical standards, scholars have characterized the forbearance demonstrated by Smith and the moderate Antifederalists as \u201cextraordinary for a group of revolutionaries.\u201d[25]<\/a> This blog post tells the story of the New York convention from Smith\u2019s perspective using exciting, newly discovered manuscripts.<\/p>\n

Newly discovered convention speeches<\/em><\/p>\n

A handwritten manuscript of Smith\u2019s speech of July 23 was recently discovered in the New York State Library in Albany. The speech was located in the files of an Antifederalist colleague, John Williams. Further complicating the historic record is the fact that the manuscript was not labeled or dated and does not appear to be in the handwriting of either Melancton Smith or John Williams.[26]<\/a><\/p>\n

The manuscript of a second undated Melancton Smith speech was also recently discovered in Albany.[27]<\/a> Believed to have been delivered on 11 July 1788, the second speech is consistent with Smith\u2019s initial position that the New York convention should only ratify the Constitution with conditional<\/em> amendments. By contrast, the July 23 speech reflects Smith\u2019s shift to support unconditional<\/em> ratification. The July 23 speech is thus significant as Smith justifies his controversial but vital support of unconditional ratification, with recommendatory amendments and a call for a second general convention.<\/p>\n

Statutesandstories.com is also pleased to report that additional Melancton Smith files are now available to researchers for the first time.[28]<\/a> Smith\u2019s personal convention notes from June 30 and July 1 were recently transcribed by John P. Kaminski.[29]<\/a> These newly published convention notes complement Smith\u2019s July 11 and 23 speeches. Moreover, a compilation of proposed amendments and objections was also uncovered in the Melancton Smith Papers in Albany.[30]<\/a> Taken together, this treasure trove of Smith materials represents over 13,000 words of historically significant text. As set forth below, these newly available primary sources help confirm Melancton Smith\u2019s identify as Brutus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Overview of the New York convention <\/em><\/p>\n

The New York ratification convention began on June 17 with the Federalists heavily outnumbered. On June 24, news arrived in Poughkeepsie that New Hampshire had ratified the Constitution.[31]<\/a> Although the Constitution had crossed the requisite nine-state ratification threshold, New York Antifederalists held their ground insisting on the need for conditional amendments. Shortly thereafter, Virginia unconditionally ratified with forty recommended amendments. To his credit, Smith realized that the ground had shifted. Smith\u2019s July 23 speech announced his reluctant conversion away from conditional ratification. Comparing Smith\u2019s July 11 and July 23 speeches enables scholars to examine the evolution in his thinking.<\/p>\n

The New York convention learned on July 2 that Virigina had ratified the Constitution. The news was delivered by an express rider carrying a letter<\/strong><\/a> from James Madison to Alexander Hamilton.[32]<\/a> While some Antifederalists insisted that nothing had changed, the Virginia ratification vote was in fact a \u201cgame changer.\u201d[33]<\/a> Prior to July 2, the Federalists \u201cdisputed every inch of ground\u201d as the parties debated the Constitution from top to bottom, clause-by-clause. Beginning on July 3, the Federalists changed their strategy. \u201cWe now permit our opponents to go on with their objections and propose their amendments without interruption.\u201d[34]<\/a><\/p>\n

Although the news from Virginia didn\u2019t alter the Antifederalists\u2019 public position, the pace of the New York convention accelerated.[35]<\/a> In early July the convention completed its section-by-section review of the Constitution and permitted the Antifederalists to exhaust \u201call of the amendments they could then think of.\u201d[36]<\/a> As described by Antifederalist Nathaniel Lawrence, \u201cthey have quietly suffered us to propose our amendments without a word in opposition.\u201d Thereafter, the convention deadlocked.<\/p>\n

Smith\u2019s proposed off ramps and the \u201ccircular letter\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Despite the closely watched Virginia vote, New York Antifederalists continued to insist on conditional ratification. The parties were at loggerheads as the Federalists were only willing to agree to unconditional ratification, with recommended amendments. After the convention completed reviewing the Constitution by paragraph on July 7, the frustrated delegates dug in for a \u201cweek-long stalemate.\u201d[37]<\/a><\/p>\n

The Antifederalists privately caucused for two days over strategy. On July 10, John Lansing introduced the Antifederalist plan of conditional ratification. Described by historians as a \u201cconfusing array of more than fifty possible amendments,\u201d[38]<\/a> Lansing\u2019s complex proposal envisioned three categories of amendments: explanatory, conditional and recommendatory. Federalists attacked Lansing\u2019s proposal as a \u201cgilded rejection,\u201d which Congress was unwilling to accept.[39]<\/a><\/p>\n

An informal committee with equal numbers of both parties was appointed on July 10, but failed to break the deadlock.[40]<\/a> After reporting that \u201cno plan of conciliation had been formed\u201d by the committee, on July 11 John Jay offered the Federalist counterproposal. Jay moved that the Convention ratify without conditions, but with explanations and recommendatory amendments. The convention faced a \u201cperfect crisis, with two opposing proposals on the table, each rigidly supported by one party or the other.\u201d[41]<\/a><\/p>\n

It was at around this time that Smith delivered his newly discovered speech of July 11. Smith indicated that it was \u201cneedless at this time\u201d to repeat their arguments, as the constitution had been \u201csufficiently discussed\u2014every member has had a fair opportunity to make up his mind on the subject.\u201d Smith explained that \u201cI have made up my own, and my opinion is, that if it is not greatly amended, that we have during the late revolution been fighting for a shadow.\u201d Smith defended the Antifederalist position advanced by Lansing, involving three types of amendments. Smith described the advantages of the Antifederalist plan: it would \u201cadmit us into the union,\u201d protect against \u201cencroachments\u201d by the federal government, and secure the \u201cfreedom of elections.\u201d Smith concluded his July 11 speech by summarizing that the Antifederalist proposal \u201cblends together the blessings of union and liberty.\u201d[42]<\/a><\/p>\n

As the Antifederalist floor manager, Smith faced a dilemma. In his private correspondence with Massachusetts Antifederalist Nathan Dane, Smith admitted his fear that there would not be \u201ca sufficient degree of moderation in some of our most influential men, calmly to consider the circumstances<\/em> in which we are, and to accommodate our decisions to those circumstances<\/em>.\u201d Wrestling with his \u201carduous and disagreeable\u201d task, Smith confided to Dane that he wished to support his Antifederalist colleagues \u201cas far as is consistent with propriety<\/em>.\u201d[43]<\/a> Recognizing that \u201cpride, passion and interested motives have great influence in all public bodies,\u201d Smith predicted that \u201ctime and patience is necessary to bring our party to accord, which I ardently wish.\u201d[44]<\/a><\/p>\n

Smith planned – when the time was right – to offer \u201cconditions subsequent\u201d in place of \u201cprevious conditional amendments.\u201d For Smith, his proposed conditions subsequent would \u201ctake place in one or two years after adoption or the ratification [would] become void.\u201d By making this accommodation, Smith hoped to obtain his primary goal of \u201csubstantial amendments\u201d rather than conditional ratification with unimportant amendments.[45]<\/a><\/p>\n

Smith no doubt understood the implications of ratification by New Hampshire and Virginia. The \u201cground of argument\u201d was now very different as the new constitution was no longer theoretical. Distinguishing between \u201cthen<\/em>\u201d and \u201cnow,<\/em>\u201d the New York Packet<\/em> observed that \u201cbefore\u201d nine states had ratified there was hope of procuring amendments before its operation. \u201cNow,<\/em>\u201d all hope of antecedent amendments had vanished. \u201cThen<\/em>,\u201d the old Confederation was \u201centire and unimpaired.\u201d \u201cNow<\/em>,\u201d the new Constitution was in fact a reality and any non-ratifying states were on their own. \u201cThen<\/em>, those who voted against the New Constitution, only preferred the old one, or a chance for another: – Now<\/em>, those who vote against the New Constitution, vote themselves out of the New Federal Union.\u201d[46]<\/a><\/p>\n

On Monday, July 14 impatient Antifederalist William Harper called for a vote, asserting that they had \u201cspent three days doing nothing but talk\u201d about competing proposals.[47]<\/a>\u00a0Hamilton sought to delay a substantive vote since \u201che supposed it would amount to a rejection.\u201d[48]<\/a> As described by Federalist David Bogart, \u201c[t]he important decisive question would have been put this morning, had not the eloquent Hamilton and Mr. Jay pleaded the postponement (at least till tomorrow), of a question the most serious and interesting ever known to the people of America.\u201d[49]<\/a><\/p>\n

Instead of a vote, July 15 brought a \u201cflurry\u201d of competing motions.[50]<\/a> Smith and Hamilton offered dozens of proposed amendments intended to break the deadlock. Smith moved for ratification \u201cbut disallowance of certain provisions from taking effect until a second convention met to consider amendments.\u201d Under Smith\u2019s proposal, ratification would be conditioned upon Congress only exercising limited power over: 1) federal elections, 2) deployment of the militia outside NY, and 3) the levying of direct taxes.[51]<\/a> In other words, Smith\u2019s July 15 motion might be described as \u201climited ratification,\u201d compared to Lansing\u2019s \u201cconditional ratification\u201d and Jay\u2019s \u201cunconditional ratification.\u201d[52]<\/a><\/p>\n

On July 16 the Federalists feared the outcome of a pending vote. Recognizing that adjournment would be preferable to defeat, Federalist delegate John Sloss Hobart moved for adjournment until September.[53]<\/a> James Duane, the Federalist mayor of New York City, seconded Hobart\u2019s motion. For the next two days the delegates debated the implications of adjournment, which was temporarily postponed until July 17.[54]<\/a><\/p>\n

On July 17 the increasingly frustrated delegates had been deliberating at the convention for a month. By a vote of 40 to 22, the Antifederalists rejected the Federalist motion to adjourn until September. Recognizing that time was running out, Smith decided to take the \u201cdisagreeable\u201d and controversial steps outlined in his correspondence with Dane. According to Michael Klarman, Smith \u201cstunned the delegates by taking another step in the Federalist\u2019s direction\u201d and abandoned his support for Lansing\u2019s proposal.[55]<\/a> Historian Pauline Maier describes the fateful moment when Smith began his pivot:<\/p>\n

For a moment the agenda seems clear. The convention would turn next to Smith\u2019s [earlier] motion\u2026But then, in one of the strangest turns in that most complex convention, Smith announced that he no longer supported his own proposal because he had come to think that Congress would not accept it.[56]<\/a><\/p>\n

Smith courageously explained that he originally believed that Congress would accept the conditional mode of adoption he had previously proposed, but he was \u201cmistaken.\u201d He wished therefore to \u201cwithdraw\u201d his prior motion, as there was \u201clittle reason to expect that we shall be received on these terms.\u201d He freely admitted that he stood on \u201cticklish ground.\u201d Smith expected that his position would \u201cnot please either side of the house.\u201d Smith explained that he shifted his ground to occupy a \u201cbetter position\u201d that would \u201csecure an admission into the union & procure a consideration of amendments.\u201d[57]<\/a><\/p>\n

In an effort to engineer a compromise Smith offered a substitute proposal.[58]<\/a> Smith began with a list of seven categories of defects in the Constitution – which all aligned with the arguments Brutus<\/em> had been making since October of 1787. A detailed spreadsheet comparing Smith\u2019s July 17 motion with Brutus <\/em>is available upon request. Smith explained that based on these objections the convention would not have acceded to the Constitution, but for \u201cthe strong attachments they feel to their sister States, and their regard to the common good of the Union, impel them to preserve it.\u201d[59]<\/a><\/p>\n

Smith\u2019s detailed motion included an escape clause. Smith proposed that New York should ratify with the stipulation that it could \u201crecede and withdraw\u201d from the union if Congress did not call for a second convention.[60]<\/a> Smith also moved \u201cthat a circular letter be addressed to all the States in the Union\u201d enclosing proposed amendments, and \u201cearnestly inviting them to join with this Convention in requesting the Congress at their first meeting, to call a Convention of the States, to consider of the amendments proposed by all the States.\u201d[61]<\/a><\/p>\n

Antifederalists received Smith’s proposal with \u201cindignation & suspicion.\u201d[62]<\/a> Although Smith presented his July 17 motion \u201cfrom the sincerest desire to accommodate,\u201d it split the Antifederalist ranks. Smith\u2019s proposal was met with \u201ca long silence,\u201d forcing the Antifederalists to privately caucus on July 18 and 19. As reported by one observer, some of Smith\u2019s colleagues were \u201cenraged\u201d by his proposal and \u201cdetest Smith as much as Hamilton.\u201d[63]<\/a><\/p>\n

Despite the schisms he was creating among his Antifederalist colleagues, Smith was appointed to an informal working committee. Two Antifederalists and two Federalists were charged with \u201carranging the amendments agreed to\u201d and \u201cother matters not considered.\u201d[64]<\/a> While the delegates might agree on proposed amendments, the looming question was the unresolved \u201cform\u201d of ratification. Federalist delegate Isaac Roosevelt observed that the convention was divided into four classes: 1) ratification with conditions, 2) ratification with a right to withdraw if a second convention wasn\u2019t obtained, 3) absolute ratification, and 4) adjournment.[65]<\/a><\/p>\n

Smith had still more ground to traverse. When they entered the convention Smith and the Antifederalists wanted conditional<\/em> ratification. On July 15 Smith had proposed limited<\/em> ratification. On July 17 he shifted to ratification \u201con the express condition\u201d that a second convention meet \u201cas soon as possible\u201d to consider amendments.\u201d[66]<\/a> Smith now sought to walk his fellow delegates away from his proposed condition<\/em> subsequent<\/em> to unconditional<\/em> ratification.<\/p>\n

In addition to Roosevelt\u2019s four camps, the range of possible approaches included the following: 1) conditional ratification with conditions precedent [Lansing on July 10], 2) unconditional ratification [Jay on July 1], 3) limited ratification constraining objectionable Congressional powers [Smith on July 15], 4) temporary adjournment [Hobart on July 17], 5) ratification with the right to withdraw based on a condition subsequent [Smith on July 17], and 6) rejection. Ultimately, New York approved unconditional ratification with a detailed set of proposed, non-binding amendments and a circular letter calling for a second general convention.<\/p>\n

As described in Smith\u2019s July 23 speech, New York should propose<\/em>, not dictate<\/em> terms to the ratifying states. Smith asked:<\/p>\n

Shall we endeavour to give the laws to the other parts of It, and dictate to them the terms of our Admission or shall we with brotherly kindness and confidence take our station in the family transition, and rely on common interest and common prudence for those Alterations and improvements which in our opinion will be calculated to render It more commodious and safe\u2014?<\/p>\n

The decisive vote for ratification would be taken on July 23, the day that the informal committee of four reported its recommended amendments.[67]<\/a> Antifederalist Samuel Jones, supported by Smith, suggested unconditional ratification with wordsmithing. Jones moved to substitute the words \u201cin full confidence\u201d that amendments would be adopted, in place of the phrase \u201cupon condition.\u201d The critical vote was 31 to 29, with twelve Antifederalists crossing party lines to vote with the Federalists. Based on the resulting compromise, an extensive list of non-binding amendments would be recommended, accompanied with Smith\u2019s concept of a circular letter to the states proposing a second convention.<\/p>\n

The New York Circular Letter<\/em><\/p>\n

On July 26, the Federalists acquiesced in a final Antifederalist demand. A three-member committee consisting of John Jay, John Lansing and Smith was appointed to draft a \u201ccircular letter\u201d to the states recommending, but not insisting on a second general convention of the states to consider proposed amendments.[68]<\/a> The New York convention adjourned after unanimously approving the circular letter. Both Smith and Jay prepared their own drafts.[69]<\/a> As described below, Smith\u2019s draft of the circular letter aligns with Smith\u2019s July 23 speech and contains fingerprints which provide further evidence of the \u201cBrutus <\/em>\u2013 Melancton Smith Authorship Thesis.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The New York circular letter was a \u201cremarkable document.\u201d[70]<\/a> While multiple states including New York proposed amendments, New York was the only state that endorsed a second general convention by circulating a formal letter to its \u201csister states.\u201d The so-called \u201ccircular letter\u201d was signed by New York\u2019s governor George Clinton as the President of the New York ratification convention and addressed to the chief executives of the other twelve states. The circular letter was the means by which New York invited the other states to join its call for a second convention.[71]<\/a> Circular letters seeking collective state action had been used for various purposes during and after the revolutionary war.[72]<\/a> Not surprisingly, the idea for a New York circular letter was initially proposed by Melancton Smith.[73]<\/a><\/p>\n

Alignment of the recently discovered manuscript of Smith\u2019s July 23 speech and th<\/em>e broadside report of Smith\u2019s July 23 speech<\/em><\/p>\n

The recent discovery of Smith\u2019s historic July 23 speech evidences Smith\u2019s full pivot to unconditional ratification. While detailed transcriptions of the convention debates were kept in June, records are sparse for July. For example, newspaper publisher Francis Childs stopped taking daily shorthand notes after July 2.[74]<\/a> Until now, the best account of Smith\u2019s July 23 speech was a special edition, \u201cSupplemental Extraordinary,\u201d report in the New York Independent Journal.<\/em>[75]<\/a> Published by John and Archibald M\u2019Lean on July 28, the folio-sized broadside report contained a detailed summary of Smith\u2019s July 23 speech (hereinafter the \u201cbroadside report\u201d). Recognizing the importance of Smith\u2019s decisive speech, the Independent Journal<\/em> reported that it was being summarized \u201cwith fidelity\u201d and as nearly as possible in Smith\u2019s \u201cown language\u201d:<\/p>\n

I have been rather particular in stating the business of Wednesday to you, because I think it is of a decisive nature; and I was so well pleased with Smith\u2019s speech, that I have given you the substance of it with fidelity, and nearly as I could in his own language.\u2026\u201d[76]<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Based on the content of the manuscript discovered in Albany there should be no doubt that it was Smith\u2019s critical July 23 speech. Although the Albany manuscript is not labeled or dated, it aligns with the Independent Journal<\/em>\u2019s summary of Smith\u2019s July 23 speech.[77]<\/a> The following chart compares the newly discovered manuscript with the broadside report in the Independent Journal<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Broadside report of July 23 speech<\/strong><\/td>\nManuscript of July 23 speech<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“Melancton Smith arose, and declared his determination to vote against<\/strong> a condition<\/strong>.”<\/td>\n“I was once, Mr Chairman a friend to conditional<\/strong> Amendments but after the most mature consideration and expecting upon reflecting seriously on the present state of the question, I am induced to think that they ought not to be persisted in, in any shape<\/strong>.”<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“He urged that however it might otherwise be presumed, he was consistent<\/strong> in his principles and conduct.”<\/td>\n“As my anxiety to have amendments made is well known[.] my motives\u00a0cannot\u00a0be mistaken<\/strong>. I am persuaded firmly in my own mind that our amendments should be recommendatory, and that If we annex conditions to them we shall depart far from that line of prudence and propriety, which all the other objecting states without exception have concurred in observing.”<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“He was as thoroughly<\/strong> convinced<\/strong> then as he ever had been, that the Constitution was radically defective, amendments to it had always been the object of his pursuit…”<\/td>\n“Many are the difficulties which will and must attend the plan of previous conditional amendments, and the more we examine and investigate the nature and tendency of such a measure, the more I become<\/strong> Convinced<\/strong> that It will operate to defeat the very purposes which we wish so ardently wish to Attain”<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“it was equally the dictate of reason and of duty<\/strong> to quit his first ground<\/strong>, and advance so far as that they might be received into the Union.”<\/td>\n“It is our duty<\/strong> to take the most Effectual and prudent means in our power to Obtain them.\u2014the only question then is, what those most Effectual and prudent means are” \u201cIf we give our amendments the form of conditions, I fear we shall put ourselves on higher ground<\/strong> than we can maintain\u2026\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“from the reasonings of gentlemen<\/strong> in opposition to it, and whose opinions alone would deservedly have vast weight in the national councils as well as from the sentiments of persons abroad, he was now persuaded the proposition would not be received”<\/td>\n“As It is I cannot help wishing for amendments. Yet I confess that when I consider how many wise good men<\/strong>, men who have given the fullest evidence of their love of their country, have either been concerned in framing or have since [missing lines]”<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“He then placed in a striking and affecting light, the situation<\/strong> of this State in case we should not be received by Congress, convulsions<\/strong> in the northern part, factions and discord in the rest. “<\/td>\n“A dismemberment<\/strong> of the state however grating or unwelcome the supposition may be seems to be a probable consequence. If It should be thought of, can we prevent It\u2014Besides the strength of the seceeding<\/strong> part itself what efforts can be looked for from the divided and disagreeing residue of the state in offensive operations.\u201d\u00a0 \u201cDisunion on the contrary will not only beget weakness and of Course insecurity against foreign dangers but will occasion <\/span>strifes and quarrels<\/strong> among ourselves and while It exposes us to all the <\/span>horrors of internal war<\/strong>\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cHe therefore concluded that it was no more than a proper discharge of his public duty as well as the most advisable way of obtaining the great end of his opposition to vote against any proposition which would not be received<\/strong> as a ratification of the Constitution.\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cI cannot help concluding that a conditional adoption is a rejection\u2014It seems to me to amount to this\u2014we reject the thing proposed and we propose instead of It something else\u2014Congress cannot Know us but thro the constitution, If we agree to that we are of course received into the union\u2014If we do not agree to It or which is I conceive the same thing\u2014If we agree to it upon condition that It must be altered and made a different thing, we then cannot be received <\/strong>into the union\u2026\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Smith\u2019s July 23 speech aligns with his draft of the Circular Letter<\/em><\/p>\n

The phraseology of the July 23 speech also aligns with Smith\u2019s draft of the convention\u2019s circular letter. Importantly, Smith\u2019s July 23 speech would likely have been fresh in his mind when he drafted the circular letter. While it is unclear when Smith began preparing his draft of the circular letter, he proposed the concept of the circular letter on July 17. The convention voted to appoint a committee of Smith, Lansing and Jay to prepare the circular letter on July 25.[78]<\/a><\/p>\n

The following chart compares the newly discovered manuscript of Smith\u2019s July 23 speech with Smith\u2019s draft of the circular letter:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
July 23 speech<\/strong><\/td>\nSmith\u2019s circular letter draft<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cour sister states\u201d (2x)<\/strong><\/td>\n\u201cour sister states\u201d<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201ccalling <\/strong>a General Convention\u201d<\/strong><\/td>\n\u201ccalling <\/strong>another general Convention\u201d<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cthe people of America\u201d<\/strong><\/td>\n\u201cthe people of America\u201d<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cjoin with us<\/u> <\/strong>in promoting them\u201d
\n\u201c<\/strong>Shall we Join<\/strong> the great American family\u201d<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u201c<\/strong>they will join with us<\/u>\u201d
\n\u201cjoin with <\/strong>ours\u201d<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cthe constitution in the present form\u201d<\/strong><\/td>\n\u201cthe constitution in the present form\u201d<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201c<\/strong>at the expensive of so much blood and treasure\u201d<\/strong><\/td>\n\u201c<\/strong>a vast expence of blood & treasures\u201d<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201csuch occasions\u201d<\/strong><\/td>\n\u201csuch <\/strong>an occasion\u201d<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cthe operation of the <\/strong>System<\/u>\u201d<\/strong><\/td>\n\u201cthe operation of the <\/strong>Government<\/u>\u201d
\n\u201cgoing into operation\u201d<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
upon what terms we will accede<\/strong><\/td>\n\u201cour sister States have already acceded<\/strong> to the system\u201d
\n\u201ctherefore acceded<\/strong> to the Constitution\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
sentiments<\/strong> (2x)<\/td>\nsentiments<\/strong> (3x)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
defects<\/strong> (3x)<\/td>\ndefects<\/strong> (2x)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cshall increase the common interests of the people of America in the common liberty<\/u>, and are well know[n] that they have shown as strong an attachment<\/strong> to it as we have\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cWe beleive their attachments<\/strong> to Liberty<\/u> is equally strong with ours\u201d
\nattachment (3x)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cevery well grounded clause of Apprehension<\/strong>\u201d
\n\u201cWhat have we not to apprehend<\/strong> from such a situation?\u201d<\/td>\n		\u201csecure and quiet those apprehensions<\/strong>\u201d
\n\u201cThey are entitled to a security for them, and even to have their apprehensions<\/strong> of danger removed\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
union<\/strong> (8x)<\/td>\nunion<\/strong> (3x)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cI am induced<\/strong> to think\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cthe reasons which induce<\/strong> us to disapprove\u201d\u00a0 \u201csufficient to induce<\/strong> a reconsideration of it\u201d<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cline of prudence and propriety<\/strong>\u201d
\n\u201ccan never hesitate about the propriety<\/strong> of<\/u> calling a convention\u201d
\n\u201cstrong argument in the public mind of the propriety<\/strong> of<\/u> a thing\u201d<\/td>\n		\u201cwe cheerfully consent to submit to their determinations on the propriety<\/strong> of<\/u> the amendments to be made to this system\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
disposition<\/strong> (3x)<\/td>\n\u201cmen in whose ability & dispositions<\/strong>\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0\u201cnecessary to the prosperity<\/strong> of the farm\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cessential to the public prosperity<\/strong> safety and happiness\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201ccalculated to render<\/strong> It\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cas will render<\/strong> those invaluable rights and Liberties\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cin the national council<\/strong>\u201d
\n\u201cJoint councils<\/strong> and of the Major voice\u201d
\n\u201ccouncil<\/strong> the leaders\u201d<\/td>\n		\u201cunited councils<\/strong> of the people\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cprevious<\/strong> conditional amendments<\/u>\u201d (2x)<\/td>\n\u201camendments<\/u> previous<\/strong> to\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cShall we in order to secure liberty\u201d<\/strong>
\n\u201csecurity of liberty<\/strong>\u201d<\/td>\n		\u201cin order to secure the Liberties<\/strong> of the people\u201d
\n\u201cas will secure the Liberties<\/strong> of the people\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
confidence<\/strong> (4x)<\/td>\n\u201cfullest confidence<\/strong>\u201d; \u201cfullest confidence<\/strong>\u201d, \u201chighest confidence<\/strong>\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cmanifest<\/strong> confidence\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cWe trust the amendments<\/strong> we have proposed will manifest<\/strong> that none of our objections have originated<\/strong> from those sources\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
sense<\/strong> (4x)<\/td>\n\u201cour sense<\/strong> of its defects\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cnever submit<\/strong> to be taxed\u201d
\n\u201cconsent to submit<\/strong> ours to the general voice\u201d
\n\u201ccan ever submit<\/strong> to such treatment\u201d<\/td>\n		\u201csubmit<\/strong> to their determination\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
decisive<\/strong> step<\/td>\ndecisive<\/strong> proof<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cpower which I fear <\/strong>may prove dangerous\u201d
\n\u201cI fear<\/strong> we shall put ourselves\u201d
\n\u201cI fear<\/strong> may be attended\u201d<\/td>\n		\u201ctheir fears<\/strong> should be quieted,\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cThe greatest proportion of the<\/strong> inhabitants<\/u>\u201d
\n\u201cA respectable proportion of the<\/strong> citizens<\/u>\u201d<\/td>\n		\u201ca great proportion of the<\/strong> people<\/u>\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201clarge<\/strong> majorities<\/strong>\u201d<\/td>\n\u201ca large majority<\/strong>\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cis this a reasonable<\/strong> reliance\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cIt is reasonable<\/strong> that their fears should be quieted\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201can essential<\/strong> step to putting the wheels of the Government in motion\u201d<\/td>\n\u00a0\u201cessential<\/strong> to the public prosperity safety\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cprocure<\/strong> a more ample vent\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cprocure<\/strong> amendments\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cto contend<\/strong> with\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cso nobly contended<\/strong>\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cor shall we withdraw <\/strong>ourselves from it<\/strong>\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cwithdraw from it<\/strong>\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cwe are not to presume<\/strong>\u201d<\/td>\n\u201cit is to be presumed<\/strong>\u201d \u201cwe presume<\/strong>\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Alignment between Smith\u2019s newly discovered July 23 speech and Nathan Dane\u2019s letter of July 3<\/em><\/p>\n

Particularly useful attribution evidence connecting Melancton Smith and the newly discovered July 23 speech can be found in Nathan Dane\u2019s letter of July 3. Among other things, Dane explained that the \u201csituation\u201d of our government was \u201ca matter of common concern<\/em>\u201d after New Hampshire and Virginia had ratified. As a result, \u201cthe Constitution is already established there can be no previous amendments.\u201d Dane was also concerned about possible violence, warning that our people, though enlightened are \u201chigh spirited<\/em>.\u201d On July 15, Smith wrote back to Dane indicating that \u201cI entirely accord with you in Opinion and shall if necessary avow them\u2014Time and patience is necessary to bring our party to accord, which I ardently wish.\u201d[79]<\/a> To the extent that Smith\u2019s July 23 speech was the pivotal moment when he did so, it should not be a surprise that Smith\u2019s July 23 speech aligns with Dane\u2019s July 3 letter.<\/p>\n

The following chart compares the newly discovered manuscript of Smith\u2019s July 23 speech with Dane\u2019s July 3 letter:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Dane’s July 3 letter<\/strong><\/td>\nSmith’s July 23 speech<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“our people tho enlightened are high<\/strong> spirited<\/strong>“<\/td>\n\u201cthe other states, who are as free as independent and as high<\/strong> spirited<\/strong> as we are\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“a matter of common concern<\/strong>“; “common interest<\/strong>“<\/td>\n\u201crely on common<\/strong> interest<\/strong> and common<\/strong> prudence;\u201d \u201cWill they be inclined to make common<\/strong> cause<\/strong> with us;\u201d \u201cIf we go into the operation of the System we shall have a voice<\/strong> in the event and shall increase the common interests<\/strong> of the people of America in the common<\/strong> liberty<\/strong>\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“the State that adopts this mode comes into the Union armed with the declared Sentiments of her people, and will immediately have a voice<\/strong> in the federal Councils<\/strong>\u2026 whereas if she adopts conditionally She will not have a voice in those Councils<\/strong>“<\/td>\n\u201cIt hath always been held right and proper that all measures touching the public weal should be the result of Joint councils<\/strong> and of the Major voice<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd we ought to be content to submit ours to the General voice<\/strong>, and not demand that the General voice<\/strong> shall declare that to be good which the General Judgment may think imperfect\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

“It cannot be proper for any State positively to say to the others, that unless they precisely agree to the alterations she proposes she will not accede to the Union\u2014this would be rather dictating”<\/strong><\/td>\n\u201cShall we endeavour to give the laws to the other parts of It, and dictate<\/strong> to them the terms of our Admission\u201d. \u201cIn private life we think it assuming and Indelicate for any man to dictate<\/strong> to his neighbours…”<\/p>\n

\u201cThey propose but they do not dictate<\/strong>[.] They recommend but they do not impose;\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

“the State that adopts this mode comes into the Union armed with the declared<\/strong> Sentiments<\/strong> of her people\u2026”<\/td>\n“the most powerful and influential States concur with us in thinking that certain defects in the constitution ought to be remedied\u2014they have declared<\/strong> other sentiments<\/strong> “<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“Our object is to improve the plan proposed: to Strengthen and secure its democratic features; to add checks and guards to it; to secure<\/strong> equal liberty”<\/strong><\/td>\n\u201cShall we in order to secure<\/strong> liberty<\/strong>, dissolve our ties\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
situation<\/strong> (5x)<\/td>\nsituation<\/strong> (6x)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“probable<\/strong> consequence<\/strong> of any hostile beginnings” “the probable<\/strong> consequence<\/strong> of either beginning”<\/td>\n\u201cA dismemberment of the state however grating or unwelcome the supposition may be seems to be a probable<\/strong> consequence<\/strong>.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“we cannot reasonably expect<\/strong>“<\/td>\n“we cannot reasonably expect<\/strong>” “we may reasonably expect<\/strong>“<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“Even when a few states had adopted without any alterations, the ground<\/strong> was materially changed; and now it is totally shifted”<\/td>\n“If we give our amendments the form of conditions, I fear we shall put ourselves on higher ground<\/strong> than we can maintain…”<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
“merely because she does not accede<\/strong> to<\/strong> a national compact<\/strong>”<\/p>\n

“unless they precisely agree to the alterations she proposes she will not accede<\/strong> to<\/strong> the Union”<\/td>\n

“If the first, upon what terms we will accede<\/strong> to<\/strong> this new and momentous compact<\/strong>.”<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Alignment between Brutus and newly discovered Smith manuscripts and speeches<\/em><\/p>\n

During the course of the convention, Melancton Smith\u2019s public position shifted as the situation and circumstances on the ground changed. Nevertheless, certain signature words and phrases repeat in his newly discovered speeches. Many of these words and phrases used by Melancton Smith can be characterized as Brutus<\/em> fingerprints.<\/p>\n

The Brutus Part 3<\/strong><\/span><\/a> blog identified the frequent use of biblical references as a signature Melancton Smith fingerprint. The Broadside report of Smith\u2019s July 23 speech is a perfect example. Smith explained that he feared that if New York refused to join the union the strength of the Antifederalist party would be \u201cdissipated, their Union lost, their object probably defeated, and they would, to use the simple figurative language of Scripture, be dispersed like sheep on a mountain<\/em>.\u201d[80]<\/a><\/p>\n

The recently discovered manuscripts of Smith\u2019s July 11 and July 23 speeches similarly contain biblical allusions. Unlike many other founders, Smith did not have a classical college education. Nevertheless, he was well versed in biblical texts. He invoked Job 38:11 in his July 23 speech by indicating that \u201cwe are not to presume that all the other states will agree that the Constitution ought to be altered Just so far and no further than<\/em>\u201d the state of New York might dictate.[81]<\/a><\/p>\n

As described in Brutus Part 3<\/strong><\/a><\/span>, Smith\u2019s religiosity dates back decades. In a letter from Smith to his friend Henry Livingston in 1771, Smith invoked the blessings of heaven three times: \u201cMay the smiles of a kind and indulgent Heaven cheer you\u201d; \u201cmay Heaven grant\u201d; \u201cHeaven bless you.\u201d These blessings\/references to heaven align with Smith\u2019s convention speeches (on June 20, 25, 27), five of Brutus\u2019s<\/em> letters (Brutus <\/em>1, 5, 7, 10, 15) and Plebeian<\/em>.<\/p>\n

For example, Brutus 1<\/em> describes the debate over the constitution as follows:<\/p>\n

The most important question that was ever proposed to your decision, or to the decision of any people under heaven<\/em>, is before you, and you are to decide upon it by men of your own election, chosen specially for this purpose. If the constitution, offered to your acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty<\/em>, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Smith\u2019s July 11 speech summarized that the Antifederalist plan of conditional amendments he was proposing \u201cblends together the blessings<\/em> of union and liberty.\u201d Smith\u2019s draft of the circular letter similarly referred to \u201cthe blessing<\/em>\u201d of liberty, which was earned \u201cby a vast expence of blood & treasures<\/em>.\u201d Smith\u2019s July 23 speech likewise used the phrase, \u201cso much blood and treasure\u201d <\/em>as does Brutus <\/em>10 \u201cmore blood and treasure<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Smith\u2019s July 23 speech also aligns with Brutus 1<\/em>. The phrase \u201cthe wheels of the government<\/em>\u201d appears a total of two times in the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution<\/em>. Brutus 1<\/em> used the phrase on 18 October 1787 and the phrase is also used in an essay in the Boston Gazette<\/em> on 3 December 1787.[82]<\/a><\/p>\n

In his newly uncovered July 23 speech, Smith explained that:<\/p>\n

\u201cI cannot agree with Gentlemen who may think that we ought to risk every thing in the endeavours to obtain Amendments. \u2014I think we shall have sufficient security in different states\u2026.Congress can never hesitate about the propriety of calling a convention[.] This will be an essential step to putting the wheels of the Government in motion<\/em>, and from that convention we may reasonably expect a removal of every well grounded clause of Apprehension.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another example of alignment with Brutus <\/em>and the newly uncovered Melancton Smith speeches involves the concern that decisions be prudent. For example, the second sentence of Brutus 1<\/em> expresses his goal \u201cto lead the minds of the people to a wise and prudent<\/em> determination\u2026.\u201d Similarly, the first sentence of the July 11 speech indicates that \u201c[w]e ought not Vote to agree implicitly to a form of govt. which will diminish or destroy it. Events may nevertheless turn up which make it in some measure expedient and prudential<\/em> to accede entirely to a form of govt. greatly defective.\u201d Smith\u2019s July 23 speech used the word prudent\/prudence\/propriety a total of seven times as follows:<\/p>\n