Ratification Sources: Public Essay vs. Private Letter
A student researching Pennsylvania’s ratification of the Constitution finds two sources. Source A is an essay published in the Pennsylvania Gazette in November 1787 under the pseudonym 'A Farmer.' It argues that the proposed Constitution concentrates power in a distant government, creates a standing army that could be turned on citizens, and will raise taxes on land. The newspaper’s editor was a prominent supporter of ratification, and the essay appeared alongside pro-ratification pieces. Source B is a private letter written in December 1787 by a Philadelphia merchant to his brother in London. The merchant attended the state ratifying convention and writes that 'the farmers in the backcountry fear taxes more than tyranny' and that he voted for ratification only after receiving assurances about navigation rights on the Delaware. The student concludes that Source A is more reliable because it was published and therefore 'public,' while the letter is merely one person’s opinion. The student asks which source better answers the question: Why did Pennsylvania ratify the Constitution?
1. Evaluate the student’s claim that a published source is inherently more reliable than a private letter. In your answer, discuss provenance, audience, and purpose for each source.
Read the worked answer
The student’s criterion is flawed. Reliability is not a property a source has in the abstract; it is fitness for a particular question. Source A’s publication makes it public, but its pseudonym, its placement beside pro-ratification pieces, and the editor’s known support for ratification all suggest a persuasive purpose. A published essay can be reliable evidence of the arguments circulating in 1787, but it is not a neutral record of why delegates voted. Source B is private, but privacy can reduce performance for an audience; the merchant had less reason to posture for the public. Yet he was writing to a business partner and may have emphasized navigation rights to justify his vote. For the question 'Why did Pennsylvania ratify?' neither source is authoritative by form alone. The student should ask what each source can establish: A can establish Anti-Federalist arguments that ratification supporters had to answer; B can establish one delegate’s stated reason. Both need corroboration.
2. Explain how you would use each source to answer the research question, and identify one piece of corroborating evidence you would seek for each.
Read the worked answer
Use Source A as evidence of the public debate, not as a tally of motives. It shows that opponents attacked the Constitution on standing-army and taxation grounds, which helps explain what supporters had to rebut. Corroborate it with other Pennsylvania Anti-Federalist essays, newspaper circulation records, and the published ratification convention debates. Use Source B as evidence of a delegate’s private reasoning, especially the linkage between ratification and navigation rights on the Delaware. Corroborate it with merchant petitions, port records, and correspondence from other Philadelphia delegates. A strong answer would also note that the question is causal and complex; neither source alone can show why a majority voted as it did. The student should compare the sources’ claims with the convention minutes and with roll-call or town-meeting records where available.
3. What is one limitation of each source that the student should acknowledge?
Read the worked answer
Source A’s main limitation is that its author is hidden behind a pseudonym and its content is shaped by editorial context; we cannot know whether the 'Farmer' was a landowner, a merchant, or a party operative, and we cannot assume the essay reflects readers’ views. Source B’s main limitation is that it is one person’s account, written to a relative and likely shaped by the merchant’s class interests and desire to justify his vote. It also may not represent backcountry farmers, whom the merchant describes rather than quotes. The student should treat both as evidence of perspective, not as transparent windows.