1. DEBATE OVER CONSTITUTION

New York Public Library, with the letter "s" dropped from the word "Obser-
vations" on the title page, was possibly part of a new printing of the Letters.
Except for this change on the title page, this printing is identical to the second
edition of the Letters mentioned above.) In March 1789 Greenleaf still had
copies of the Letters for sale, along with several other Antifederalist pamphlets
(New York Journal, 12 March 1789, Mfm:N.Y A week later, on 19 March, Edward
E. Powars of the Worcester American Herald also advertised that he had copies
for sale.).
At the request of "A CUSTOMER" the Country Journal reprinted the entire
pamphlet in weekly installments from 14 November 1787 to 2 January 1788.
Addressing the journal's printer "A CUSTOMER" stated: "It is my opinion that
every well-written piece in favor or against the new Constitution, ought to be
laid before the public. You have published several pieces on both sides, and
being sensible of your impartiality, the republication of the following letters
cannot but afford general satisfaction." (For excerpts of the Letters reprinted
by the Massachusetts Gazette and the Newport Mercury, see notes 3 and 38 below.)
On 11 January 1788 Federalist Abraham Van Vechten ofJohnstown, N.Y, wrote
Antifederalists Henry Oothoudt andJeremiah Van Rensselaer of Albany thank-
ing them for a copy of the Letters that they had sent him on 2 January. He
declared that he would deliver it to some "Friends here for their perusal"
(James T. Mitchell Autograph Collection, PHi). A month later Federalist Wil-
liam North wrote from Albany that the Letters, "Centinel," and other Antifed-
eralist publications "are scattered all over the County" (to Henry Knox, 13
February, III below). (For the circulation of the Letters outside New York, es-
pecially in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, see CC:Vol. 2, pp.
17-18. New York Antifederalists were involved in the circulation of the pam-
phlet in Connecticut and perhaps in the other two states.)
The response of New York Federalists to the Letters was mixed; nor did they
respond in any significant detail to its arguments. James Kent wrote that the
Constitution had "considerable Defects" and that the "Federal Farmer" had
"illustrated those Defects in a candid & rational manner" (to Nathaniel Law-
rence, 9 November, below). "Pat. O'Balaghan" in the Country Journal dismissed
"Federal Farmer" as one of "those polity-errant writers who create monsters
on purpose to destroy them" (19 December, Mfm:N.Y.). Also writing for the
Country Journal, "Cato" warned his readers to beware of the sophistry of the
"Federal Farmer" who agreed that the Confederation needed to be reformed
but who thought reform was impractical (19 December, supplement, below).
The Federalist 29 (Alexander Hamilton), Independent Journal, 9 January 1788
(CC:429), attacked "Federal Farmer" for criticizing the provision of the Con-
stitution permitting the calling out of the militia to enforce the laws of the
United States. "Curtiopolis," adopting a satirical stance, makes the writings of
the "Federal Farmer" and other Antifederalists appear to be ridiculous (Daily
Advertiser, 18 January, below). In The Federalist 68, "Publius" admitted that the
"Federal Farmer" was the "most plausible" of the Antifederalists (Independent
Journal, 12 March, CC:615, p. 376). A reviewer, probably Noah Webster, of the
Letters and the Additional Letters, stated that the "Federal Farmer" wrote "with
more candor and good sense" than most Antifederalists even though his "ar-
guments want method, and the reader is consequently fatigued with number-
less repetitions." He also responded to several of the arguments (American

206