Simone Lawson
The Federalist Constitution was a highly contested topic during its time, with supporters of the document calling themselves Federalists and those against it, Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists included small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers. They believed that the Constitution would give the federal government too much power and that it would threaten their liberties. The Federal Farmer, an Anti-Federalist who wrote a methodical assessment of the proposed Constitution, argued that the Constitution would consolidate the thirteen states into one whole, threatening the sovereignty of the individual states. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists eventually reached a compromise that led to the adoption of the Constitution, but the political division between the two groups persisted.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Pseudonym of the author | The Federal Farmer |
| Type of work | Anti-Federalist paper |
| Number of pamphlets | 2 |
| Date of first pamphlet publication | November 1787 |
| Date of second pamphlet publication | December 1787 |
| Addressee of the letters | The Republican |
| Likely author | Melancton Smith |
| Main argument | The Constitution will consolidate the states into one national government |
| Suggested remedy | Limiting Congressional control over commerce |
| Federalist response | Timothy Pickering's personal letter |
| Federalist stance | In favor of ratification |
| Anti-Federalist stance | Against ratification |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Anti-Federalist Papers
The Anti-Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by various authors in opposition to the ratification of the Constitution. These essays were published in newspapers across the country under pseudonyms such as "Cato," "Brutus," and "Federal Farmer," with the latter being the pseudonym of an Anti-Federalist whose methodical assessment of the proposed Constitution was significant in the ratification debate. The Federal Farmer's true identity remains unknown, but scholars suggest that it was likely written by Melancton Smith, a New York lawyer and Anti-Federalist leader at the New York convention. Other possible authors include Richard Henry Lee, a known Anti-Federalist and former President of the Continental Congress, and New York state governor George Clinton.
In the Anti-Federalist Papers, the Federal Farmer acknowledged that the old system had issues, especially regarding trade and commerce. However, he questioned the rush to adopt a new Constitution, arguing that individuals, not the government, are responsible for their happiness and prosperity. The Federal Farmer's primary concern was the belief that the Constitution would consolidate the thirteen states into one whole, destroying state sovereignty and posing a threat to American liberties. He argued that a free elective government cannot be effectively extended over large territories with diverse laws, customs, and opinions, and that a uniform system of laws would unreasonably invade individual freedom.
The Federal Farmer's letters were addressed to "The Republican," and they made references primarily to the New England states and New York. The Federal Farmer's arguments reflected typical Anti-Federalist concerns about the consolidation of power and the preservation of state rights. He feared that the Constitution would lead to a consolidated government, destroying the federal system and the liberties it guaranteed. This concern over consolidation was a significant objection among Anti-Federalists, who viewed the central government created by the Constitution as a threat to freedom.
Leading Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason, shared similar sentiments during the ratification debates. George Mason attended the Convention but refused to sign the final document, indicating the strong opposition to the Constitution's central government among Anti-Federalists. The Federalist Papers, written by Federalists like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, provided a contrasting perspective, arguing in favor of ratification.
The Anti-Federalists' Amendments: A Compromise for the Constitution
You may want to see also
Loss of state sovereignty
The Federalist Constitution was a highly contested topic during its time, with Federalists arguing in favour of ratification and Anti-Federalists against it. The Federal Farmer, an Anti-Federalist who wrote a methodical assessment of the proposed United States Constitution, was one of the most prominent critics of the Federalist Constitution. The Federal Farmer's primary concern was the loss of state sovereignty and the consolidation of power in a national government. They argued that the Constitution would ""annihilate"" the states, transforming the federal system into a unified national government. This, they believed, would be destructive to American liberties.
The Federal Farmer's argument centred on the idea that the proposed Constitution would lead to the consolidation of the thirteen states into one whole. They believed that a "free elective government cannot be extended over large territories" and that a uniform system of laws would unreasonably invade the different laws, customs, and opinions of the individual states. This concern over consolidation was shared by many Anti-Federalists, who viewed the destruction of state sovereignty as a threat to freedom. They wanted to preserve the state governments and have a federal government that was more than just advisory.
The Federal Farmer's identity remains a mystery, with scholars debating between Richard Henry Lee and Melancton Smith as possible authors. Smith, a New York lawyer and Anti-Federalist leader at the New York convention, eventually voted for the Constitution, which could explain why he kept his authorship a secret to not jeopardise his political career in Federalist New York City. Lee, on the other hand, is known to have been an Anti-Federalist and could have arranged for the initial publication of the pamphlets while serving in New York in 1787.
The Federal Farmer's arguments were taken seriously by the Federalists, with Alexander Hamilton describing them as "the most plausible" Anti-Federalist. The Federalists, including Hamilton and Noah Webster, acknowledged the validity of the Federal Farmer's concerns but ultimately disagreed, believing that a Bill of Rights coupled with the Constitution was unnecessary and potentially harmful. They argued that it was impossible to list all rights and that those not listed could be overlooked.
Federalist 10: A Constitution's Cornerstone?
You may want to see also
Checks and balances
The Federalist Papers, written between October 1787 and May 1788, were a series of letters published in New York newspapers under the pseudonym "Publius". The papers were authored by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, with Madison writing 29 and Hamilton 51 of the letters. The purpose of the papers was to persuade the New York convention to ratify the newly drafted Constitution.
Federalist No. 51, titled "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments", is an essay written by either Madison or Hamilton. The document was first published by The New York Independent Journal on February 6, 1787. In it, Madison explains and defends the checks and balances system in the Constitution. Madison argues that each branch of government is framed so that its power checks the power of the other two branches. He also discusses how republican government can serve as a check on the power of factions and the tyranny of the majority. Madison emphasizes that although the branches were meant to have checks and balances, they would only function to their fullest extent if they were independent of one another.
Madison's idea of checks and balances was influenced by political philosophers such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who proposed similar ideas during the Enlightenment period. Madison's proposal for a federalist system involved each level of government having different branches, with each branch having the authority to impact legislation proposed by other branches. This system would prevent a small group of partisan individuals from enacting laws and strong ideas that may be in their own interests rather than in the interests of their constituents.
The Federalist Papers also introduced the concept of concurrency of powers between the national and state governments, suggesting a balance between centralized authority and the autonomy of separate states. This idea of checks and balances was seen as a way to restrict governmental power and prevent its abuse.
Federalists vs Republicans: Interpreting the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$20.8 $25
$12.99 $12.99
Threat to liberty
The Anti-Federalists, including Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee, believed that the Federalist Constitution posed a threat to liberty. They emerged from a historical context where they preferred localized government and feared that a strong central authority would trample individual liberties. This fear was informed by their experience with British rule, and they saw the proposed Constitution as potentially replicating such tyranny.
The Anti-Federalists generally agreed on a few things. Firstly, they believed that the new Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress, at the expense of the states. Secondly, they believed that the unitary president resembled a monarch, and that this resemblance would eventually produce courts of intrigue in the nation's capital. Thirdly, they believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, as opposed to a federal one. Lastly, they argued that without a Bill of Rights, the federal government would become tyrannous.
The Federal Farmer, an Anti-Federalist who wrote a methodical assessment of the proposed Constitution, claimed that the Constitution would tear down the sovereign states in favor of a consolidated government, and that this end of the federal system would be destructive of American liberties. The Federal Farmer ascribed to the compact theory of federalism, arguing that the threat to federal government constituted a menace to republicanism.
Leading Anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason argued that the central government created by the Constitution would be a threat to liberty. They believed that a powerful national government would threaten the liberties they had fought to secure from British rule. They saw the destruction of state sovereignty as inimical to freedom and argued that states were better suited to protect individual freedoms.
To address Anti-Federalist concerns, James Madison, a leading Federalist, proposed a series of amendments, resulting in the adoption of ten amendments that collectively became known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment addressed Anti-Federalist fears of governmental suppression of speech, religion, and the press, providing broad protections for these freedoms. The Second Amendment enshrined the right to bear arms, reflecting Anti-Federalist concerns over a standing army's potential threat to state and individual liberties.
Anti-Federalists' Concerns: What Was Missing from the Constitution?
You may want to see also
Bill of Rights
The Federalist Constitution faced opposition from Anti-Federalists, who believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government, threatening individual liberties. This group included small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, and labourers. The Anti-Federalists' opposition to the ratification of the Constitution without a Bill of Rights was a significant factor in the origin of the Bill of Rights, which aimed to protect Americans' civil liberties.
The Anti-Federalists, including Patrick Henry and George Mason, argued that the central government created by the Constitution would be a threat to liberty. They were concerned about the excessive power of the national government at the expense of state governments and individual freedoms. In contrast, Federalists like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton supported the Constitution and a stronger federal government, believing that the Constitution already ensured individual rights and that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. They asserted that the state constitutions had delegated to the state all rights and powers not explicitly reserved for the people. Federalists also believed that a Bill of Rights could set a dangerous precedent, where the omission of a right could imply that an individual did not possess that right.
The debate over the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution was intense, with Anti-Federalists refusing to support the Constitution without one. The absence of a Bill of Rights became an obstacle to the Constitution's ratification by the states. Thomas Jefferson, in December 1787, stated, "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."
The Constitution's framers heeded Thomas Jefferson's argument, and James Madison, a Virginian delegate, began drafting amendments to address the concerns of both Anti-Federalists and Federalists. Madison, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, wrote essays defending the Constitution. Madison proposed nine changes to the Constitution, intending to protect and uphold individual rights. By June 1788, nine states had ratified the Constitution, and on March 4, 1789, it became law, backed by eleven of the thirteen states. The creation and implementation of additional amendments, including the Bill of Rights, were among the first tasks for the United States Congress.
Anti-Federalists' Stance on the Constitution: A Complex Debate
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Federal Farmer was the pseudonym used by an Anti-Federalist who wrote a series of essays against the proposed United States Constitution.
The Federal Farmer was concerned that the Constitution would consolidate the thirteen states into one whole, threatening the sovereignty of the individual states and, in turn, the liberty of the people.
The Federal Farmer's essays were among the more important documents of the ratification debate. Federalists and Anti-Federalists eventually reached a compromise that led to the adoption of the Constitution, but political division persisted into the presidency of George Washington.
