10

The Impact of the American Constitution on Polish Political Opinion in the Late Eighteenth Century

Zofia Libiszowska

I’ n this century we had two outstanding republican governments-the English and the American....our constitution, which we are to establish today, surpasses both of them; it guarantees liberty, security and all freedoms.”¹

So said Stanisław Małachowski, Marshal of the Polish Diet, in his inaugural speech at the Diet’s May 3rd, 1791 session. His remarks indicate that those who prepared the draft of the Polish Constitution took the American political system into consideration. The watchwords he used, “liberty,” “security,” “freedom,” sound very much like those of the American Declaration of Independence and of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, although the French Revolution was not mentioned by Małachowski for political reasons.

The Constitution of the United States, which itself contained English and French political ideas, provided inspiration and example for the Assemblée Nationale and for the Polish Diet. When the constitutional era began, Poland was at the forefront of institutional and national change. The great Polish reform was the last endeavor to reinforce and modernize the state as well as the last chance for Poland to recapture her sovereignty, limited, even before the First Partition (1772), by a Russian protectorate.

How much was known in eighteenth-century Poland about the newly established American political system?² America’s war for independence met with great interest and approval in Poland. The new political structure, which emerged after the victory at Yorktown, provoked a variety of comments in Polish political circles.³

The Articles of Confederation were reprinted in the Polish press and appeared in political writings as well. The draft of the Constitution proposed by the Philadelphia Convention was published in Gazeta Warszawska and reprinted in Gazety Wileńskie late in 1787. A Polish historian and writer, Franciszek Siarczyński, editor of the collection Traktatymiędzymocarstwami europeyskiemi (Treaties between European Powers) included the Articles of Confederation, with a long introduction, and the Treaty of Paris of 1783, with a short history of the American war in successive volumes. In the collection’s last volume, printed in 1790, he published the New Constitution of the United States.⁴

Polish readers could also find the American Constitution in an appendix to Philip Mazzei’s Recherches historiques et politiques sur les États Unis de l’Amerique Septentrionale (Paris, 1788, 4 vol.). Mazzei, a veteran of the American revolution and a friend of Jefferson, was an agent for the Polish court in Paris from 1788. An attempt was made, but not realized, to translate his work, admired by King Stanisław August Poniatowski, into Polish. Another participant in the revolutionary war, Lewis Littlepage, the first American to settle in Poland, was engaged as secretary to the Polish King in 1784.⁵ One of the Polish King’s secretaries, Scipione Piattoli, an Italian, and friend of Mazzei, was also well acquainted with Jefferson and well informed about the American Constitution. The Polish aristocrat, Jan Potocki, a great traveler, scientist and novelist, intended to write a history of the American War of Independence. Many articles on the American social and economic situation and on the political system were printed by Piotr iswitkowski in a monthly review, Pamiętnik Historyczno-Polityczny.⁶ American news was to be found in the Polish press, especially in Gazeta Warszawska and Gazeta Narodowa i Obca, the organ of the “Patriotic Party.”

The Polish court and some politicians owned works such as Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, John Dickinson’s Letters From a Farmer in Pennsylvania, Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man and Joel Barlow’s The Vision of Columbus. King Stanisław August’s correspondence with Mazzei shows that the King read The Federalist.⁷ There is no doubt that American events and the new American system of government excited interest and hope in Poland on the eve of the Four-Year Diet.

During the first two years of the Great Diet, which opened in October 1788, two antagonistic political parties emerged: the so-called “Old Republicans,” guardians of “golden liberty,” and the party of reform which, following the American and French examples, took the name “Patriots.” Neither party had a majority in the Diet, and therefore both of them appealed to the public for support. The “Patriots,” who were backed by the representatives of townsfolk in the Diet, also gained the support of the people of Warsaw. Patriot ideology was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment as expressed by Montesquieu and the Physiocrats. The conservatives were compelled to use the same language. They used a specific interpretation of the word “liberty.” They also cited the American example in order to deprecate the English hereditary monarchy, which was a model for “Patriots” and the King himself.

In December 1789, when the Diet approved the Principles to Reform the Government, the situation seemed analogous to that of the American Congress before the adoption of the Constitution, and Poland appeared on the verge of constitutional reform. In the spirit of change, Piotr Świtkowski, the editor of PamięcnilńHistoiyczno-Polityczny, published an article entided “Zasady Nowej Konstytucji i formy rządu zjednoczonej Ameryki Pólnocnej” (The principles of the New Constitution and the form of government in the United States of North America.)⁸ His intention to influence the Diet was obvious. The American solution, he argued, was much more progressive than other available political models, given its emphasis on equality of rights and duties and on the abolition of every form of privilege.

The crucial problem in Polish governmental reform was the monarchy. Should it be elective or hereditary? Would the king lose all his powers and prerogatives? Would the country have a permanent Diet and regional dietines of the nobility? Or would there be a hereditary monarchy with the king as chief executive?

Late in 1789, a war of pamphlets started between the two opposite parties in the Diet. The first attack came from Field Hetman Seweryn Rzewuski, a leader of the “Old Republicans.” Rzewuski criticized the English constitutional monarchy. England was a kingdom without freedom. The Americans had no choice but to fight against it. Once free, they rejected the idea of a king, and formed a federal republic. “A hereditary monarchy,” he concluded, “cannot be reconciled with freedom.”⁹ Rzewuski reasoned that federalism should be introduced in Poland to strengthen traditional republicanism.

Recalling Polish traditions and ancient noble liberties Rzewuski emotionally encouraged the Poles to follow the American example:

Franklin and Washington, those souls full of justice, those great souls, to whom America owes her freedom and the whole world pays honor and show its admiration, and whose example the Poles should follow, have shown mankind that in a Republic a free people...has no need of kings for its happiness.

This pamphlet was a great success, and a second edition soon appeared. Stanisław August, in a letter to Mazzei, expressed his anxiety about its undesirable effects in promoting the “Old Republican” cause.¹⁰

Some anonymous writers supported Rzewuski, invoking the same argument, that an elective system is the cornerstone of freedom, and that the proof of it was “the newly founded Republic in America.”¹¹ Hereditary monarchy meant despotism and the loss of freedom as was evident from the oppression of American colonies.¹² These authors argued that Franklin and Washington demonstrated what the true spirit of English liberty was when they escaped the fictitious liberty of life under a hereditary monarchy to establish real liberty and freedom in the United States of America.¹³ The English hereditary monarchy, as they presented it, was the source of wars and injustice; it was nothing but despotism.¹⁴

The most important response to Rzewuski’s pamphlet came from Hugo Kołłątaj, the main ideologist of the “Patriots.” Kołłątaj accused Rzewuski of perverting the ideas of the American leaders. He wrote that he would not be opposed, if the author of the pamphlet and its readers, “inspired by the spirit of Franklin and Washington ... and having become thoroughly acquainted with the rights of man, had thought about safeguarding the liberties of the Polish nation....so that the safety of the nation and the people’s freedom should be the purpose of their designs, as was the case with Franklin and Washington.” Kołłątaj asked Rzewuski, “Of whose freedom does he perorate, the nobility’s or the common people’s?” He insisted that Rzewuski “does not think in the same way as Franklin and Washington did, neither does he speak as a man; he speaks as a lord.”¹⁵ Then he explained his position and his own point of view on the American experiment as a model for all of humanity. “I myself also know Franklin’s language, and I see what is likely to happen in the whole enlightened world.” Is it possible, however, for Poland to follow the example of the United States? Their republic is protected from all sides by the ocean, by marshes and deserts, whereas Poland has the most powerful despots as neighbors. Their two and a half million people live in a country that can maintain for up to 30 million; here in Poland there is a dense population and a covetous fight for land. How is it possible to govern the Commonwealth without a king, demanded Kołłątaj. The federal form of government proposed by Rzewuski would unavoidably lead to the partition of the country.

Emphasizing that he is an enthusiastic supporter of American liberty and its founders, Kołłątaj explained, nonetheless, that foreign examples should be adapted to local conditions and circumstances. “The system of Franklin carries different consequences for each nation...The system of Franklin is concerned with the freedom of man and not with the means by which men everywhere try to recover their rights.”¹⁶ According to Kołłątaj, Franklin and Washington started their reform with the assertion that “in America there are no subjects, or class divisions; in America all men are equal.”

Similar arguments about America’s unique situation are found in many other replies to Rzewuski. They emphasize the geographical situation of America, its political system and the security of its frontiers. The strongest argument against the “Old Republican” position was that a republic cannot exist among despotic monarchies. “Wherever there is even a single despotic state, there it is hardly possible to preserve a republican government in the neighboring nations,” warned Stanisław Staszic.¹⁷ Ignacy Potocki, in spite of his conviction, stated, not without regret that “Given the present state of affairs, Poland is unfit to be a true republic... Poland, considering her territory, national organization and customs, cannot be a common republic (une république simple) nor a confederation. Therefore, all proposals of imitating ancient or modern republics should be forgotten; neither Łycurgus, nor Franklin can meet her needs. Poland can only be a limited monarchy (une monarchie limitée).¹⁸

For its supporters, like Potocki and Staszic, a hereditary monarchy was perceived as necessary for Poland as it faced the danger of powerful despotic neighbors. In court circles it was seen above all, as a means of strengthening the executive within a system of separation of powers, in conformity with “the new theory of government” as Stanisław August called it.¹⁹

It is worthwhile at this point to examine the contents of a pamphlet entided Króika rada względem napisania dobrej konsiytucji (Brief advice concerning the writing of a good constitution),²⁰ published in 1790. Its author, Kajetan Kwiatkowski, argued that in Poland the king should be the head of the executive branch. He explained:

Though a nation has no king, nevertheless the legislative power and the executive power must be separate. Then executive authority shall rest with the magistrates and the legislative authority with the representatives of the nation. Such is the situation of the thirteen American provinces...where each province has its own magistrates, its own courts of justice and its own revenue and military offices, and all of them together have their parliament and their president, who is different from the king of England only in name, but not in authority, and has executive power and the power of establishing laws over the whole territory.²¹ Again and again the example of America was used in various discussions.

At the close of 1790, a year of stormy polemics, Jan Potocki, editor of Le Journal Hebdomadaire de la Diète, reflects, For us, who have the experience of past events and the education of an enlightened age, justice and truth are restored to their old rights, and the words addressed by Washington to the citizens of the United States eight years ago can be applied to our present situation. We have arrived at a time when the rights of man are better understood and more clearly defined than at any time before.²²

It was beyond the ability of the representatives assembled in the Diet to solve these problems and to finish their work within the limit of two years. The 1790 election reinforced the position of the supporters of the King and the “Patriotic Party.” The Republicans remained the only dangerous opponents to constitutional reform.

The project for the reform of dietines, prepared by the “Patriots” with the approval of the King, provoked a new protest by Hetman Rzewuski. Defending the landless nobility, whom the reform deprived of the vote, Rzewuski again used the American example. In America, he wrote:

a tenant has vocem activant (the right to vote) in assemblies. The land he tills is not his own, but the opinion he holds is his own. He is a tenant on the soil, but a citizen in an assembly, and it often happens in debates that those who pay rent and those who receive it, hold opposite opinions.²³

Rzewuski defended gentry republicanism because the landless nobility traditionally voted in support of the great landlords who were their patrons. Despite objections by Rzewuski and others Parliament passed the law that deprived the landless nobility of their political rights.

In the debates of the Diet and in journalistic discussions the question of the rights of burghers came to the fore. The image of the American revolution and of a society without discrimination (estates, and their privileges) played an important part in these exchanges. Piotr świtkowski raised the issue of rights for the urban population in his article about the United States, in which he explained the conception of American liberty and equality. His allusion to Polish affairs is obvious. “Do not let us blunder by pretending that a great nation can be free and have one class of people hold the reins of government and control the rest of the nation.”²⁴ In America, he claimed, not noble birth but personal merit assured the esteem and social advancement.

The anonymous author of the well-known pamphlet Dwóch nieboszczyków... (Two dead men), dealt with the problem of political and social equality for townsmen. “People!” he begged, “I am addressing you once and again. Oh! how gravely you are mistaken if you think that you should respect noble birth alone and not intelligence, merit, ability, and virtue. Let William Tell and George Washington bear witness to it.”²⁵

Similarly, another anonymous author concluded that “the recent revolution in America gave George Washington, a then unknown Virginian, the name of a great general and founder of liberty, and the whole world remembers this name with respect.”²⁶ The loudest voice in favor of equal rights was that of Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz, who declared:

Very often ordinary men saved their motherland and made it famous. None of us knows who the father of Washington was, or whom Franklin counted as grandfather....but everybody knows and future generations shall remember that Washington and Franklin liberated America.²⁷ The question of rights for townspeople also had its economic side. America not only set an example, but, as a land of promise, was a rival to the old continent. Farseeing politicians warned that foreigners, instead of settling in Polish towns “ought to seek refuge in the free States of America beyond the seas where neither burgher nor craftsman is held in contempt.”²⁸ Kołłątaj, demanding political rights for townspeople, argued that such freedom would have happy consequences for Polish cities. “We should encourage the friends of freedom from distant countries, who seeing no better shelter from oppression go beyond the sea to the land of Franklin and Washington.”²⁹ Jacek Jezierski, industrialist and political writer argued “when they hear in foreign countries that we bestow freedom and justice not only upon cities, but upon everybody, they will come to Poland.... as to a new-found America.”³⁰

The Law on Cities of April 18, 1791, was a kind of agreement or even alliance between the nobility and the burghers. It was celebrated in town halls as well as in churches where the names of Washington and Franklin were often invoked.

The peasant question suggested fewer American comparisons. In the great mass of publications on that problem, only a few authors made use of American examples. Frequently, Polish peasants were compared to Negro slaves rather than to American farmers. Nevertheless, the problems of slavery and of indigenous Indians in America did not eclipse Polish statesmens’ faith that the new state pointed the way to universal liberty.

In the debates concerning the form of the Polish government and the social system, arguments referring to the American Revolution were mostly used as rhetorical ornaments, and the American example was not seen as applicable to Poland. Nevertheless, such references influenced the climate of the discussion and awakened the social and political consciousness of Poles, even if they did not offer actual models and solutions suited to Polish problems.³¹

Świtkowski discussed the Polish Constitution in a series of articles, comparing it with that of the United States. He explained to the readers of Pamńętnik Histoyczno-Polityczny that the system adopted by the United States for the election of officials in the legislative and executive brances could be used only in countries not threatened from the outside. Polish conditions, on the other hand, made it necessary to strengthen the executive and to introduce hereditary monarchy.³²

In the atmosphere of lively and heated discussion aroused by the proposed constitution, Gazeta Narodowa i Obca published a eulogy to the American Constitution written by Benjamin Franklin in a letter to Congress in 1788. Franklin pointed out that no law could be perfect and satisfy all requirements, as it was only a human work, but he praised the Constitution’s indisputable merits, declaring: “I endorse this Constitution as, truly, I wonder if any other could be better for us.”³³ Franklin’s words were quoted to support the 1791 Constitution and to convince those who doubted its merits.³⁴

American news published by the Polish press during the Four-Year Diet featured the remarkable prosperity of the union. Readers learned about the accession to the federal union of formerly recalcitrant states, about the development of trade and the growth of export, about finance, banking and the stable value of paper money. An interesting case was the news about America published in Gazeta Narodowa i Obca in May 1791 written in the form of letters from Philadelphia and Boston and clearly intended as an argument in the fight aganst the intrigues of the Polish political opposition:

While Europe has fallen prey to cabinet intrigues, foreign wars and domestic discussions, and some people...praise the fortunate change of their fates while others travel to foreign courts to lay charges against their own country which has dared to become wisely self-governed and independent, the states of the United America are enjoying the blessings of tranquility and candor.³⁵

Gazeta Narodowa i Obca also reported the proceedings of the Congress and President Washington’s public pronouncements. His speech opening the first Congress was reprinted in two consecutive issues. In Pamiętnik Histoiyczno-Polityczny Żwitkowski wrote that “at a time when some people make bold to maintain that free nations can neither wisely govern their state nor be happy, it is most profitable to observe that country which not long ago began its political existence under the banner of liberty.”³⁶ In that same issue he published Washington’s report to Congress. Gazette de Varsoviepursued a similar course. Informing its readers of the economic development of North America, it emphasized “voilá les fruits de la liberté, voilá ce que produit un Gouvernement sagement organisé et doué denergie.”³⁷ At the moment that the work of the Four-Year Diet was imperilled by Rzewuski, Gazeta Narodowa i Obca quoted the words that the First Citizen of the United States addressed to his countrymen: “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution that you have given yourselves. The country shall find in it security and peace, the weak shall find protection and the brave a curb.”³⁸

During the festivities celebrating the proclamation of the Constitution of 3 May, and later on its first anniversary, special attention was paid to its connection with and relation to American models associated with Franklin and Washington. During a solemn session at Wilno University, professor of law Hieronim Stroynowski delivered an oration on the Constitution, in which he quoted a long passage from President Washington’s speech previously printed in Polish newspapers. He spoke of Washington as “a great hero, enlightened legislator and expert politician, successfully controlling the helm of the free state.”³⁹ In like manner, Franklin and Washington were mentioned among the champions of liberty during the celebration of the first anniversary of the Constitution of 3 May held at Cracow University.

The American Constitution represented a great and important break with the past. It foreshadowed a world where respect for general human values would be the measure of a successful government. It is not surprising that in Poland every political camp referred to it, in spite of different political programs.

The Constitution of the United States is now over 200 years old. It became the cornerstone of American democracy and part of the American national heritage. The Polish Constitution of 3 May lasted only one year. But it fixed in the minds of Poles a belief in the similarity between two constitutions that grew out of the struggle for independence and the rights of man. At every turning point in modern Polish history and during today’s reconstruction of democracy in Poland, Polish statesmen have turned to these common constitutional roots, proving true Stanisław August’s words written to Philip Mazzei: “I believe more and more that Washington and those in his country who think as he does will become humanity’s best political mentors.”⁴⁰

Notes

1. Gazeta Narodowa i Obca, no. 37, 7 May 7 1791; see also Franciszek Siarczyński, Dzieri Trzeci Maja 1791 (The day of 3 May 1791) (Kraków, 1891), pp. 41-42.

2. Zofia Libiszowska, Opinia polska wobec Rewolucji Amerykariskiej w XVIII w. (Polish Opinion of the American Revolution in the 18th c.), (Łódz-Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1962); “Problematyka amerykanska w publicystyce Sejmu Czteroletniego” (America in the political writings of the Four-Year Diet), Zeszyty Naukowe UŁ 1, 45 (1966): 67-92. An important selection of pamphlets and articles appeared in the collection, Mateririydo dziejów Sejmu Czteroletniego (Sources related to the history of the Four-Year Diet), eds. Jerzy Michalski, Emanuel Rostworowski, Janusz Woliński, vols. 1-5, together with Artur Eisenbach vol. 6 (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1955-69), referred to hereafter as MDSC.

3. Libiszowska, Opinia polska, p. 116; see also “Stany Zjednoczone pod rządem Artykulów Konfederacji” (The United States of America under the Articles of Confederation) in Konstytucja USA 1787-1987. Historia i Wspólczesnosc, ed. Jerzy Wróblewski (Warszawa: PWN, 1987), pp. 52-77.

4. Franciszek Siarczyński, ed., Traktatymiędzymocarstwami europeyskiemi (Treaties between the European Powers) (Warszawa, 1773-1790), 6 vols. The Articles of Confederation, vol. 4, pp. 292-306, The Treaty of Paris, vol. 5, pp. 235-295, and The New Constitution vol. 6, pp. 220-253.

5. Curtis C. Davis, The King’s Chevalier (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1961). About the suspicious role he played in his service to the King, see: Miecislaus Haiman, Kościuszko: Leader and Exile (New York: Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America, 1946), p. 25.

6. American topics are to be found in Pamiętnik Historyczno-Polityczny, Jan. 1790, pp. 42-49, Feb. pp. 1-19, 35-49, 68-80, Mar. pp. 179-202, Apr, pp. 276-331, Oct. pp. 1180-1193, Nov. pp. 1328-1342, Feb. 1791, pp. 138-153, and Apr. pp. 171-374.

7. The Polish King to Mazzei, 20 January 1790, MS. Ossolineum no. 9751, p. 16; a great part of the correspondence between the King and Mazzei was edited in Italy: Lettere di Filippo Mazzei alia corte di Polonia (1788-1792), ed. Raffaele Ciampini (Bologna: N. Zanichelli, 1937); a larger collection of letters was published in 1982, Lettres de Philippe Mazzei et du Roi Stanislas-Auguste de Pologne, vol. 1, from July 1788 to August 1789, eds. Jerzy Michalski, Monika Senkowska-Gluck, with Italian cooperation (Roma, 1982). For an English translation of this correspondence, see: Philip Mazzei, Selected Writings and Correspondence, vol. 2, 1788-1791. Agent for the King of Poland During the French Revolution, ed. Margherita Marchione (Prato: Cassa di Risparmi e Depositi di Prato, 1983).

8. Piotr Świtkowski, “Zasady Nowej Konstytucji i formy Rządu Zjednoczonej Ameryki Północnej” (The Principles of the new constitution and the form of government in the United States of North America), Pamiętnik Historyczno-Polityczny, January 1790.

9. Seweryn Rzewuski, O sukcesyi tronu w Polszcze rzecz krótka (A short essay on the succession to the throne in Poland) n.p., n.d. (1789). See Zofia Zielińska, Republikanern spod znaku bulawy. Publicystyka Seweryna Rzewuskiego z lat 1788-1790(Republicanism under a hetman’s mace: political writings of Seweryn Rzewuski, 1788-1790) (Warszawa, 1988); “O sukcesyi tronu w Polszcze 1787-1790” (On the succession to the throne in Poland 1787-1790) (Warszawa: PWN, 1991).

10. Stanisław August to Mazzei, 27 January 1790, MS. Ossolineum no. 9751, p. 16. Mazzei, Selected Writings, p. 260.

11. (Seweryn Rzewuski), Mysli nad róznemi pismy popierającjvni sukcesyą tronu (Thoughts on various writings supporting the succession to the throne), n. p., n. d. (1790).

12. List z Warszawy do przyjaciela na wies o projektach Nowey formy Rządu (A letter from Warsaw to a friend in the country on proposals for a new form of government), 9 August 1790, n. p.

13. (Seweryn Rzewuski), Uwagi dla utrzymania wolnej elekcyi króla polskiego do Polaków, w Warszawie roku 1789 (Remarks to Poles about the preservation of the free elections of the Polish king).

14. (Seweryn Rzewuski), Wiadomośćchronologiczna, wktórym czasie, któreparńsrwo wolność utracilo pod rządem monarchów sukcesyjnych (Chronological information concerning when and which states lost freedom under hereditary monarchs) (Warszawa, n. d. (1790)). Zofia Zielińska in her work Republikanern..., convincingly argues that Rzewuski himself was the author of most of those pamphlets.

15. Hugo Kołłątaj, Uwaginadpismem... “Seweryna Rzewuskiego...o sukcesyi tronu w Polszaerzea: krótka” (Remarks about the work ... “Seweryn Rzewuski’s...a short essay on the succession to the throne in Poland”) (Warszawa, 1790), p. 66.

16. Kołłątaj, Uwagi..,. pp. 71-77.

17. Stanisław Staszic, Przestrogi dla Polski (Warnings for Poland), in Pisma fńlozofńczneispoleczne, ed. Bogdan Suchodolski (Warszawa: PWN, 1954), vol. 1, p. 192.

18. Ignacy Potocki to Eliasz Aloe, 7 August 1790. MS. Potocki Papers, no. 277 vol. 303, AGAD Archives, Warszawa. See Emanuel Rostworowski, Legendy i fakry XVIII w. (Legends and facts of the 18th c.) (Warszawa: PWN, 1963), p. 323.

19. (Mikołaj Wolski), Zdanie o królu polskim 1792 roku (An opinion of the Polish king in 1792) in Rocznik Towarzystwa Historyczno-Lirerackiego, Paryz 1867, pp. 10-28. See also about Stanisław August as the author of this pamphlet, Rostworowski Legendy, pp. 488-506.

20. Kajetan Kwiatkowski, Krótka rada względem napisania dobrej konstytucji (Brief advice concerning the writing of a good constitution), n.p., 1790.

21. Kwiatkowski, Krótka rada..., p. 28.

22. Journal Hebdomadaire de la Diète, no. 51, 26 December 1790.

23. Seweryn Rzewuski, Uwagi nadprawem, które by szlachcie bez posessyi activitatem na sejmikach odbieralo (Remarks on the law which would deprive the landless gentry of activitatem in the dietines), n.p., n.d. (1790).

24. “Stan prawdziwy wolnej Ameryki Pólnocnej” (The real state of free North America), Pamiętnik Historyczno-Polityczny, April 1789.

25. Dwóch nieboszczyków, Dekert z ministrem o miastach (Two dead men, Dekert with a minister about towns) (1791) in MDSC, vol. 4, p. 57.

26. Dusza krajów, czyli opoddanych polskich... (The soul of the country or on the Polish peasantry...) (1789) in MDSC, vol. 1, p. 545.

27. Gazeta Narodowa i Obca, no. 27, 9 March 1791. A portions of Niemcewicz’s speech was quoted by The Newport Mercuryon 30 July 1790; see Miecislaus Haiman, The Fall of Poland in Contemporary American Opinion (Chicago: Polish Roman Catholic Union of America, 1935), p. 35.

28. Usprawiedliwienie dysydentów mieszczan... (A justification of the dissenter burghers...), in MDSC, vol 2, p. 90.

29. Hugo Kołłątaj, “Odezwa do deputacji Konstytucyjnej” (An appeal to the constitutional deputation), in Listy Anonima i Prawo polityczne narodu polskiego, eds. Bogusław Leśnodorski and Helena Wereszycka. (Warszawa: PWN, 1954), vol 2, p. 180.

30. Jacek Jezierski, Miasta bezprawa (Warszawa: Gröll, n.d. (1791]) (Cities without law), in MDSC, vol 4, p. 51.

31. A comparison between the American and Polish constitutions has became the subject of special studies: Joseph Kasparek-Obst, The Constitutions of Poland and of the United States. Kinships and Genealogy (Miami, Florida: The American Institute of Polish Culture, 1980); European and American Constitutionalism in the Eighteenth Century, ed. Michał Rozbicki (Warsaw: The American Studies Center, 1990); Constitutionalism and Human Rights: America, Poland, and France, eds. Kenneth W. Thompson and Rett R. Ludwikowski (Lanham: University Press of America, 1991).

32. Piotr Świtkowski, “Dalsze mysł i i uwagi względem Konstytucji 3 Maja” (Further thoughts and remarks about the Constitution of 3 May), Pamiętnik Historyczno-Polityczny, August 1791.

33. Gazeta Narodowa i Obca, no. 46, 8 June 1791.

34. (Ignacy Potocki), Na pismo, któremu napis “O Konstytucji 3 Maja 1791.”... odpowiedz (Response to the publicatipn entitled “On the Constitution of 3 May 1791”) (1791). See Władysław Smoleński, Ostatni rok Sejmu Wielkiego (The last year of the Great Diet) (Kraków, 1897), p. 77.

35. Gazera Narodowa i Obca, no. 63, 6 July 1791.

36. “Stan Ameryki Pólnocnej” (The state of North America), Pamiętnik Historyczno-Polityczny, December 1791, pp. 1128-1142.

37. Gazette de Varsovie, no. 19, 25 June 1792.

38. Gazeta Narodowa i Obca, no. 4, 14 January 1791.

39. Hieronim Stroynowski, Mowa o Konstytucyi Rządu ustanowionej dnia trzeciego i piątego maja 1791 . . . czytana...dnia 1 lipca 1791 (Oration on the Constitution adopted on the third and fifth of May 1791...given...1 July 1791), see Smoleński, Ostatni rok, p. 11.

40. Stanisław August to Philip Mazzei, 17 April 1790, MS. Ossolineum, no. 9751, p. 29. Mazzei, Selected Writings, p. 327.