University of Virginia Library

TO THOMAS COOPER.[90]

Dear Sir, . . . Have you ever adverted to
the alledged minuteness of the Roman farms, &
the impossibility of accounting for their support of
a family. All the ancient authors, agricultural &
Historical, speak of the ordinary size as not exceeding
duo jugera, equal according to the ascertained
measure, to about one & a quarter of our
acres, & none of the modern writers, I have met
with, question the statement. Neither Hume nor
Wallace, tho' led to a critical, investigation of it, in
comparing the populousness of ancient & modern
nations, notice the difficulty. Dixon too in his
elaborate researches into ancient husbandry, if I
do not misrecollect, starts no doubt on the subject.
Now it is Impossible that a family, say of six persons
could procure from such a speck of earth, by any
known mode of culture, a supply of food such as
then used with the materials for clothing or a surplus
from the soil that would purchase it, to say nothing

of fuel and the wood necessary for the other wants
of the farm. We hear much also of the plough &
the oxen on the Roman farms. How were these
fed? A yoke would devour more than the whole
product.

Cincinnatus himself is reported to have owned
but 8 jugera, if I mistake not, one half of which, he
lost, by a suretyship. Even that aristocratic allowance
is not free from the remarks here made. The
subject is curious, and involves 3 questions, 1.
Whether the size of the farm, tho' never called in
question, has been rightly stated? 2. If rightly
stated & no extraneous resources existed, how were
the families subsisted? 3. If there were extraneous
resources what were they ? We read of no pastures
or forests in common, and their warlike expeditions,
tho' in the neighborhood, as it were, and carried
on by the farmers themselves, could yield no adequate
supplies to solve the problem.

The mail has furnished me with a copy of your
Lectures on Civil Government, and on the Constitution
of the U. S. I find in them much in which
I concur; parts on which I might say non liquet,
and others, from which I should dissent; but none,
of which interesting views are not presented. What
alone I mean to notice, is a passage in which you
have been misled by the authorities before you, &
by a misunderstanding of the term "national," used
in the early proceedngs of the Convention 1787.
Both Mr. Yates and Mr. Martin brought to the
Convention, predispositions against its object, the

one from Maryland, representing the party of Mr.
Chase opposed to federal restraints on State Legislation;
the other from New York the party unwilling
to lose the power over trade, through which the
State levied a tribute on the consumption of its
neighbours. Both of them left the Convention long
before it completed its work, and appear to have
reported in angry terms what they had observed
with jaundiced eyes. Mr. Martin is said to have
recanted at a later day, and Mr. Yates, to have
changed his politics & joined the party adverse to
that, which sent him to the Convention.

With respect to the term "national" as contradistinguished
the term "federal" it was not meant
to express the extent of power, but the mode of its
operation which was to be, not like the power of the
old confederation operating on States but like that
of ordinary government operating on individuals;
and the substitution of "United States" for "National,"
noted on the journal was not designed
to change the meaning of the latter, but to guard
against a mistake or misrepresentation of what was
intended. The term "national" was used in the
original propositions offered on the part of the
Virginia. Deputies, not one of whom attached to it,
any other meaning than that here explained. Mr.
Randolph himself, the organ of the Deputation on
the occasion, was a strenuous advocate for the
federal quality of limited & specified powers; and
finally refused to sign the Constitution, because its
powers were not sufficiently limited and defined.

We feel great pleasure in inferring from your
communication, that your health, so severely assailed
at Richmond, has been effectually restored.
With the best wishes for its continuance, and the
addition of all other blessings, I renew to you the
expression of my great esteem & friendly regards.