Count the Cost: An Address to the People of Connecticut, On Sundry Political Subjects, and Particularly on the Proposition for a New Constitution

In Short

This political address serves as a staunch conservative rebuttal to the early 19th-century movement in Connecticut that sought to replace the state's traditional governing charter with a new, formal constitution. The author argues that the existing system, rooted in long-standing practice and stability, provides unparalleled peace and prosperity. By scrutinizing the proposed reforms—such as universal suffrage, district elections, and the separation of church and state—the work functions as a cautionary manual, urging citizens to weigh the potential for anarchy against the proven reliability of their current institutions.

The Story

The narrative begins with a philosophical appeal to the reader’s sense of caution. Using a biblical metaphor about counting the cost before building a tower, the author establishes the baseline for his argument: any change to a functional government carries immense risk. At the time of writing, Connecticut finds itself under pressure from a rising faction of reformers who claim the state lacks a proper constitution and that its government is run by an entrenched, unrepresentative elite. The author identifies these reformers as "Jacobins," drawing direct, chilling parallels to the chaos of the French Revolution.

The argument proceeds systematically through an assessment of Connecticut’s current state. The author presents the region as a bastion of tranquility, protected by a "shield" of laws that have served the people for a century and a half. He contends that every citizen is already represented and that the legal system is equitable, noting that even the state's harshest critics admit they cannot point to a single specific instance of oppression. He frames the push for a new constitution not as a response to legitimate grievances, but as a power grab by ambitious, unscrupulous men who seek to displace established leaders.

As the text develops, the author systematically dismantles the reformers' specific proposals. He takes on the call for universal suffrage, arguing that land ownership provides a necessary stake in the stability of the state, and warns that extending the vote to those without such an interest invites the "tyranny of a mob." He similarly critiques the proposal to district the state for elections, asserting that it would replace statesmen with local sycophants beholden to narrow interests rather than the general good. He reserves his sharpest criticism for the desire to separate church and state, warning that a republic without religious institutions is a path toward moral decay and eventual ruin.

The arc of the argument concludes with a firm, patriotic appeal to the voter’s duty. The author contrasts the "venerable" figures who built the state—men like Trumbull and Ellsworth—against the "pygmy politicians" of the new movement. He posits that the current government is not merely functional, but uniquely generous, as evidenced by a provided appendix of financial data showing that the state treasury distributes more to schools than it collects in taxes. Ultimately, the author calls upon the citizenry to reject the "songs of enchantment" offered by the reformers. He insists that by failing to participate in elections, the people risk their birthright, and he implores them to defend the existing order to ensure a stable future for their children.

How It Unfolds

The call to reflection The text opens with a demand for dispassionate scrutiny of political change. It posits that the wisdom of experience must always outweigh the "dreams of enthusiasm" when the stability of a state is at stake.

The case for the status quo The argument shifts to a defense of the existing legal framework and the prosperity it has fostered. It asserts that Connecticut’s lack of major internal strife is the ultimate proof that its government is sound.

The critique of radical projects The author addresses specific reformist agendas, including universal suffrage and the redrawing of election districts. He characterizes these moves as calculated efforts to corrupt the electoral process and empower factional interests.

The financial audit The address concludes with a detailed fiscal analysis of the state's treasury. By revealing that the government effectively pays more to the public in school funding than it collects in taxes, the author attempts to prove that the state is not only free but economically benevolent.

The People

The author, writing under the pseudonym "Jonathan Steadfast," positions himself as a disinterested observer who seeks only the maintenance of public happiness. He is a staunch defender of tradition, holding that those who have "tried and approved" records—like Trumbull and Ellsworth—are the only rightful stewards of the state. He views these men as the guardians of a "fair and glorious inheritance."

Opposing him are the "revolutionists," or "Jacobins," represented by figures like Abraham Bishop and a man named Judd. The author paints these men as opportunistic and driven by "fierce, cruel" ambition. He views them as dangerous outsiders or local agitators who, lacking their own merits, must invent imaginary grievances to stir up the populace. While the author admits these leaders possess a certain ingenuity for manipulation, he portrays their followers as "dupes" who are being seduced by empty promises of power. He contrasts the "polished scholar" and the "able civilian" of the old guard with these new, "vicious" men whom he claims hide their lack of talent behind the mask of reform.

In Its Own Voice

"No prudent farmer ever pulled up a hill of corn, which was flourishing, to see if there was not a worm at the root."

The author uses this metaphor early in the text to illustrate the folly of dismantling a functional government in search of nonexistent problems.

"If we suffer revolutionists to rob us of this birth right 'then we are bastards and not sons.'"

In the latter half of the address, the author uses this inflammatory language to urge readers to view the protection of the existing charter as a duty to their ancestors.

What It's Really About

The fundamental tension lies between the preservation of established, stability-focused institutions and the expansion of democratic participation. The author is deeply concerned with the dangers of "mob rule" and the potential for demagogues to use the rhetoric of liberty to undermine the rule of law. Underlying the specific policy debates—suffrage, religion, and election mechanics—is a profound skepticism of human nature. The author assumes that in the absence of traditional checks, institutionalized religion, and land-based stakes in the community, political actors will inevitably descend into factional violence, greed, and the destruction of the very prosperity they claim to improve.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the history of American political thought will find here a rare, concentrated example of early 19th-century conservative rhetoric. The book provides an unvarnished look at how the transition toward broader democratic participation was perceived by those who feared it. The writing is passionate, biting, and at times deeply cynical about the motives of political opponents.

Modern readers may find the text challenging due to its archaic, highly formal prose and its intense, period-specific anxieties regarding the influence of the French Revolution. The author’s defense of limited suffrage and the connection between church and state stands in stark contrast to contemporary norms, serving as a reminder of the foundational debates that shaped the American experiment. Despite these differences, the author’s insistence on "counting the cost" of institutional change remains a perennial political question. The work is best appreciated as a primary artifact of its time, capturing the genuine fear that a long-standing, stable republic could be undone by the "madness" of sudden reform. It is a demanding read, but one that offers a clear, unapologetic window into the mind of an early American traditionalist.