Famous newspapers refused to publish letters to the editor or option statements without identifying the author's by contrast many people Express options on the internet using pseudonyms. Does the use of pseudonyms they improve or diminish the quality of civil discourse? Explain your reasoning?

Nowhere was the furor over the proposed Constitution more intense than in New York. Within days after it was signed, the Constitution became the subject of widespread criticism in the New York newspapers. Many commentators charged that the Constitution diminished the rights Americans had won in the Revolution.  Fearful that the cause for the Constitution might be lost in his home state, Alexander Hamilton devised a plan to write a series of letters or essays rebutting the critics. It is not surprising that Hamilton, a brilliant lawyer, came forward at this moment to defend the new Constitution. At Philadelphia, he was the only New Yorker to have signed the Constitution. The other New York delegates had angrily left the Convention convinced that the rights of the people were being abandoned.  Hamilton himself was very much in favor of strengthening the central government. Hamilton’s Constitution would have called for a president elected for life with the power to appoint state governors. Hamilton soon backed away from these ideas, and decided that the Constitution, as written, was the best one. Hamilton published his first essay in the New York Independent Journal on October 27, 1787. He signed the articles with the Roman name "Publius." (The use of pseudonyms by writers on public affairs was a common practice.) Hamilton soon recruited two others, James Madison and John Jay, to contribute essays to the series. They also used the pseudonym "Publius."

Explanation:

hope this helps :)

i believe the answer is a

irzururyecmury u4yrye ad iruryesiururslueuryr itsl47d58url yeeslye

explanation:

uriueur urii57fiiurslitslurslueursruuu irsi4ueuriturrudurdirsurzrul