Massachusetts - 6th Pillar of the ConstitutionElbridge Gerry (July 17, 1744 - November 23, 1814). Gerry came from a prosperous mercantile family in Essex County, Massachusetts. He attended Harvard College, and then helped his father with his trading ventures. Gerry's neighbors (in Marblehead, Massachusetts) elected him to the Massachusetts General Court (the assembly) in 1770; he had spoken out against British imperial policy during the Stamp Act Crisis in 1765, been further radicalized by the Boston Massacre in 1770, and while attending the General Court, fell in with radical leader Samuel Adams.

 
    In 1774, Gerry helped initiate a smallpox inoculation program for Marblehead, which to his surprise and anger, was met with massive popular opposition, opposition which drove him from politics (temporarily) and helped convince him that government was as much threatened by popular anarchy as monarchical tyranny. Nonetheless, he served in the Massachusetts Provincial Congress (the extra-legal body created by the those leading opposition to British policy) in 1774, and then was elected to the Continental Congress in 1776, where he led the movement to turn opposition into independence. He served in the Congress during much of the war.

     Gerry interpreted Shay's Rebellion (armed and often violent efforts by western Massachusetts farmers to close the state courts and prevent merchants and creditors from foreclosing on their property) not as a continuation of the revolutionary tradition of popular resistance to tyranny, but as a threat to republican liberty, and this made him an enthusiastic participant at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, but his ideas were not fully compatible with either those of the nationalists (Madison, Wilson, Washington) or their democratic opponents (Mason). Gerry was as worried about executive tyranny as popular anarchy, and believed only a government by men of virtue (like himself) could endure. His fear that the Constitution would allow a powerful executive to use a standing army to crush liberty and establish monarchy led him to oppose ratification. He also wanted a bill of rights and greater power left to the states.

     Gerry was elected to the House of Representatives, and, in fact, helped draft the Bill of Rights. He served as a diplomatic envoy to France for President John Adams and later as governor of Massachusetts.


**********************

Elbridge Gerry’s October 18, 1787 Letter to the Massachusetts General Court Explaining Why He Was One of three Delegates Not to Sign the Constitution
 
Gentlemen
 
I have the honor to inclose, pursuant to my Commission, the con­stitution proposed by the federal Convention.
 
To this system I gave my dissent, & shall submit my objections to the honorable Legislature.
 
It was painful for me, on a subject of such national importance, to differ from the respectable Members who signed the constitution: but conceiving as I did, that the liberties of America were not secured by the system, it was my duty to oppose it­.
 
My principal objections to the plan, are that there is no adequate provision for a representation of the People‑that they have no secu­rity for the right of election‑that some of the powers of the Legislature are ambiguous, & others indefinite & dangerous1‑that the ex­ecutive is blended with & will have an undue influence over the legislature‑that the judicial department will be oppressive‑that treaties of the highest importance may be formed by the president with the advice of two thirds of a quorum of the Senate‑& that the System is without the Security of a Bill of rights. these are objections which are not local, but apply equally to all the States‑
 
As the Convention was called for "the sole & express purpose of revis­ing the articles of confederation, & reporting to Congress & the several Legislatures such alterations & provisions as shall render the foederal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government, & the preser­vation of the union, "3 I did not conceive that these powers extended to the formation of the plan proposed, but the Convention being of a different opinion, I acquiesced in it, being fully convinced that to pre­serve the union, an efficient Government was indispensibly necessary; & that it would be difficult to make proper amendments to the articles of confederation.
 
The Constitution proposed has few, if any fcederal features, but is rather a system of national government: nevertheless, in many respects I think it has great merit, & by proper amendments, may be adapted to the "exigencies of Government" & preservation of Liberty.
 
The question on this plan involves others of the highest importance 1st Whether there shall be a dissolution of the fcederal Government? 2dly Whether the several State Governments shall be so altered, as in effect to be dissolved? and idly Whether in lieu of the fcederal & state Governments, the national constitution now proposed shall be substi­tuted without amendment? never perhaps were a people called on to decide a question of greater magnitude‑should the Citizens of Amer­ica adopt the plan as it now stands, their liberties may be lost: or should they reject it altogether Anarchy may ensue. it is evident therefore that they should not be precipitate in their decissions; that the subject should be well understood, lest they should refuse to support the Gov­ernment, after having hastily accepted it.
 
If those who are in favour of the Constitution, as well as those who are against it, should preserve moderation, their discussions may afford much information & finally direct to an happy issue.
 
It may be urged by some, that an implicit confidence should be placed in the Convention: but however respectable the members may be who signed the constitution, it must be admitted, that a free people are the proper Guardians of their rights & liberties‑that the greatest men may err‑& that their errors are sometimes, of the greatest magnitude.
Others may suppose, that the constitution may be safely adopted, because therein provision is made to amend it: but cannot this object be better attained before a ratification than after it? and should a free peo­ple, adopt a form of Government, under conviction that it wants amendment?
 
And some may conceive, that if the Plan is not accepted by the peo­ple they will not unite in another: but surely whilst they have the power to amend, they are not under the necessity of rejecting it.
 
I have been detained here longer than I expected, but shall leave this place in a day or two for Massachusetts, & on my arrival shall submit the reasons (if required by the Legislature) on which my objections are grounded.
I shall only add, that as the Welfare of the union requires a better Constitution than the confederation, I shall think it my duty as a Citizen of Massachusetts to support that which shall be finally adopted, sin­cerely hoping it will secure the Liberty & happiness of America.
 
I have the Honor to be Gentlemen with the highest respect for the honorable Legislature & yourselves, your most obedt & very hum servt.  E Gerry
 

1 In an essay that Gerry published in the American Herald on 18 April 1788, the "indefinite and dangerous" powers of Congress referred to "the unlimited power of Con­gress, to keep up a standing army in time of peace, and their entire controul of the militia."