Contemporary Americans are fond of
crediting the “founding fathers” for their ingenious work on the
Constitution of the United States, and for creating the democratic system of
government Americans enjoy today.
But much of this praise of the “founding fathers” is
misplaced. The framers of the
Constitution did not believe they were creating a democratic form of
government, nor did they want to.
Instead they were concerned with creating a republican government that
represented “the people,” but did not necessarily provide for the
direct participation of all groups and classes of people as voters and
leaders. The framers of the
Constitution were actually quite surprised by the democratic government and
society that emerged soon after the Constitution was ratified.[1] Considering this, it is imperative to
reexamine the Constitutional debate in order to determine who was truly
responsible for American democracy.
After the Constitution was drafted, it
was sent to each state for ratification.
It took a few months, however, for the formal ratification debates to
begin because, instead of merely submitting the Constitution to the state
legislatures, each state was encouraged to organize a independent ratifying
convention with special elected delegates. The public debate over the Constitution, however, began
almost as soon as the last delegates filed out of the convention hall in
Philadelphia. Before and during
the ratifying conventions, which assembled at different times depending on the
state, an outpouring of letters, editorials, pamphlets, and other literature
debating the merits and demerits of the Constitution circulated throughout
society. This literature provides
a wide-ranging and comprehensive analysis of the relationship between people and
government, and, when coupled with records of the ratifying debates, reveals
much about the political ideology of the two principle groups embroiled in the
constitutional debate: Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, the group to which
most of the “founding fathers” belonged, supported the new the
Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists, the side often ignored in contemporary
reflections, opposed it.[2] The Federalists won the debate, and
hence they get the credit for the democracy that emerged soon thereafter.
A careful examination of the
Constitutional debate, however, reveals that neither Federalists nor
Anti-Federalists were directly responsible, or even expected, the sort of
democracy that had developed by the early eighteen hundreds. Neither Federalists nor
Anti-Federalists were explicitly democratic. In fact, the word democracy itself was rarely used in the
debate.[3] But even though neither side was
entirely democratic, is it possible to least determine who was most sympathetic
to democratic principles? Though
it is certainly difficult, the answer is yes. While Federalists and Anti-Federalists did not usually speak
about “democracy” per se, they did speak about rights, freedom, and
representation, and by analyzing such concerns, it becomes relatively clear
that Anti-Federalists were most concerned with democratic principles.[4] Contrary to popular conceptions, our
founding fathers, mostly Federalists, were not responsible for, or even overtly
sympathetic to, the democratic orientation of the early nineteenth
century. It was the
Anti-Federalists, the losing side so often ignored, who were most sympathetic
to democratic principles.[5] While Anti-Federalists cannot claim
direct responsibility for the democratic government and society which had
developed by the early nineteenth century, they were aligned closer than
Federalists to this democratic attitude.
Many constitutional historians have
produced stellar scholarship regarding the ideological attitudes of the
Revolutionary era, but this analysis of democratic roots is most explicitly
informed by the excellent contemporary scholarship of Gordon S. Wood and Jack
N. Rakove. These two Pulitzer
Prize winning scholars have sought to provide a synthesis of the vast array of
revolutionary and constitutional scholarship produced in last half of the
twentieth century. They have
synthesized specific political, social, and especially ideological inquiries
into holistic studies designed to capture the radicalism and meaning of
revolutionary ideas.[6]
The social radicalism of the
revolutionary period is analyzed by Gordon Wood in The Radicalism Of The
American Revolution. Gordon Wood eloquently articulates the
radical social effect of conflating and synthesizing ideological ideas,
revealing how it led ordinary farmers, artisans, and laborers to reject an
entire way of life. To examine
this transformation, Wood traces the evolution of America from a monarchical
society, to a republican society, and finally to a democratic society. Each of these political systems,
according to Wood, was not just a form of government or an ideological idea,
but rather a culture of its own.
Ideological ideas pervaded and shaped the sociological orientation of
society, affecting how people lived their lives. When enlightenment ideas of equality and liberty emerged,
various social groups interpreted them differently. This difference in interpretation of the underlying ideology
made it possible for working class people-- free-holding and tenant farmers,
butchers, blacksmiths, and others not affected by the international trade-based
economy --to understand the Constitution differently than the framers.[7] The sociological affect of ideological
ideas accounts for the democracy of the early nineteenth century, and helps
illustrate how a democratic government and society could have emerged against
the will and intention of the constitutional framers. Wood’s study, however, does not directly address the
degree to which Anti-Federalists were aligned with the democratic spirit
existing among backcountry people.[8]
While Gordon Wood explores the radicalism of applying
literally the emerging tenets of a largely intellectual debate, Jack Rakove
analyzes “original meaning” and interpretation of the Constitution in
Original Meanings: Politics and
Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. Like Wood,
Jack Rakove does not adequately address the democratic sympathies of the
Anti-Federalists, dwelling instead on the ideology and activity of the
Federalists. Although he focuses
too heavily on the Federalists, Rakove delves into the quagmire of original
meanings, intentions, and interpretations, producing an excellent analysis of
how to understand the Constitution.
Rakove’s work reveals how the meaning of the Constitution evolved
in the course of discussion and implementation.[9] In the process, it implicitly
undermines Bernard Bailyn’s idea, articulated in Ideological Origins
of the American Revolution,
that the Constitution was a fulfillment of enlightenment ideas.[10] Instead Rakove views the Constitution
as a significant marker around which the ongoing debate centers, and about
which no definitive answer can be reached. The original intent can not be confined to the document
itself. The meaning of the
Constitution, according to Rakove, developed through discussion in the
ratifying debates and implementation.
But Rakove fails to explicitly note how the Anti-Federalists affected
the discussion.[11] In fact, Rakove’s overt focus on
the framers makes it imperative to apply his critical lens to the Anti-Federalists. The notion that discussion created the
meaning of the Constitution makes it necessary to analyze the role
Anti-Federalists played in the debate, and to draw connections between the
Anti-Federalists and the democratic interpretation of the Constitution that
emerged after ratification.
While Wood and Rakove provide holistic
accounts of the social integration of political principles, and the process of
interpreting the Constitution respectively, my methodology combines the spirit
of these two ideas into a structural framework which reexamines the
Constitutional debate. After
noting how ordinary people responded to ideological ideas and how the meaning
of the Constitution evolved, I was compelled to ask: which of the two
principles sides in the debate was most aligned with this democratic
interpretation? By examining the
constitutional debate it became relatively clear that it is the often ignored
Anti-Federalists who were more sympathetic to democratic principles. While much scholarship has been done on
the Constitutional era, very few scholars have adequately addressed the
Anti-Federalists. This is
evidenced by the fact that the forty year old work of Jackson Turner Main
remains the most important scholarship on the Anti-Federalists.
Jackson Turner Main’s book, The
Anti-Federalists: Critics Of The Constitution 1781 –1788, reassesses the constitutional debate in
order to note how democratic Anti-Federalists were and how they affected the
final outcome of the Constitutional debate.[12] Main’s analysis of the affect
local circumstances had on decisions, the factors effecting a change of heart
in some Anti-Federalists, and the alignment of the delegates reveals the
Anti-Federalist impact on the outcome of the debate. But Main fails, however, to measure Anti-Federalist
objections against the democratic society that develops from the
Constitution. He does not analyze
the evolution of meaning and ideas, nor does he extensively address the manner
in which democratic discussion developed the meaning of the Constitution. Main is implicitly willing to say
Anti-Federalist ideas died upon ratification, and hence he misses the
opportunity to credit Anti-Federalists with becoming part of the side that
introduced democracy into government.[13] Anti-Federalist principles did not die
upon ratification, but rather their ideas permanently shaped how people
understand the Constitution.
Therefore it is important to reexamine the democratic spirit of the
Anti-Federalists in order to show how they were aligned to the democratic
spirit of the early nineteenth century.
During the Constitutional debate,
Anti-Federalists articulated principles with a distinct democratic tenor. They were afraid that the Constitution
created a national government with too much power, and that the language of the
Constitution made it very possible that future governments could usurp the
rights of the people. Nearly every
facet of the Constitution was criticized by Anti-Federalists. They were worried that state authority
would be violated, and subsequently they wanted to make sure that the locus of
power would remain in more local governments in which the people could
participate directly.
Anti-Federalists were especially concerned about the potential for the
aristocracy to dominate government. The nature and power of the judiciary, the Senate, the
President simply provided too many opportunities for corruption and
aristocratic dominance. In the
most democratic arm of the government, the House of Representatives,
Anti-Federalists thought the representation was too scanty. And, above all, they worried over the
fact that a bill of rights had been omitted in a government vested with such
extensive power.[14] These Anti-Federalist objections to the
Constitution reveal a concern with democratic principles.
It would be a stretch, however, to
declare that all Anti-Federalists were pure ideological democrats. They were not. There were two basic groups of
Anti-Federalists: those involved the international trade-based economy, and
those who were not. The
Anti-Federalist “gentlemen” of the ratifying conventions were a
part of the former group, but they tried to speak for both. Those involved in the market economy
tended not to be as afraid of a Federal government as their compatriots in the
countryside because they recognized it was needed to address problems with
commerce. In fact, commercial
concerns eventually did convince some Anti-Federalists to switch sides against
the will of their Constituents, perhaps changing the overall outcome of the
vote. The Anti-Federalists not
involved in the market tended to oppose a Federal government outright. Instead, they were adamantly in favor
of local control. The Anti-Federalist
gentlemen in the conventions favored local control, but they believed a Federal
government with limited powers was necessary. When they realized that the new Constitution did not have
sufficient limitations on its powers, however, they cried out in alarm.[15] They sounded like paranoid fanatics,
causing some historians to believe, as Cecelia Kenyon has argued, that they
were simply conservative “men of little faith.”[16] But this is not the case. Their interpretation of republican
ideas, usually a mere concern with representation and rights, was often more
democratic: that is they wanted the representation to be more direct, and the
locus of power to be local.[17] These concerns caused them to be
especially critical of the Constitution which vested, in their eyes, far too
much power in the new Federal government.
They simply did not have confidence that ordinary people would be able
to retain their inalienable rights.
As it turned out, they were wrong.
To the relief of Anti-Federalists, the people were able to claim their
rights, and in fact were able to participate directly in government, which was
more than Anti-Federalist gentlemen had hoped for, or thought necessary. The rights of ordinary people were
protected in part because Anti-Federalists criticism, through discussion
itself, nudged interpretation of the constitutional debate onto a more
democratic path. While the Anti-Federalists cannot claim credit for the
democracy of the early nineteenth century, their efforts did perhaps make it
possible. Through the efforts of
the Anti-Federalists interpretation of the Constitution only grew more
democratic after ratification. By
the early nineteenth century, a democratic government and society had indeed
developed.
I. Democracy in the early 19th Century
Contrary to
the fears and expectations of Anti-Federalists, democracy was indeed flourishing
in the early eighteen hundreds. A
distinctly democratic political and industrial energy had developed and was
spreading rapidly. All sorts of
previously underclass people were suddenly running for office. More people had the vote, and most of
those who had it were voting. Free-holding farmers, artisans, local merchants,
and laborers all declared that they deserved a place in government, and their
fellows were rushing to the polls to vote them in. By 1825, universal white, male suffrage had been attained in
all states except Virginia, Louisiana, and Rhode Island. Political office was no longer reserved
for the most propertied elite. The
principle of disinterest, which declared that those wealthy enough to be
disconnected from the economy were the best equipped to serve because they
would remain unaffected by self-interest, was destroyed. Politics had become a business in which
wheeling and dealing ran rampant.[18] Tocqueville was correct in observing
that the chains that had linked people in a monarchical society had been
severed.[19] In the face of a egalitarian and
industrious spirit, monarchialism was indeed rapidly dissolving, and democratic
principles created by enlightenment ideas were flourishing[20]
Enlightenment
ideas of equality had become quite popular with the fairly literate American
populous that had studied the plethora of literature circulating during the
Revolutionary era. Most people had
wholeheartedly embraced the Declaration of Independence.[21] They had believed in the enlightenment theory
espousing new ideas about equality, inalienable human rights of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of property and happiness. Eventually, they began to interpret these enlightenment
cries of equality in a very literal, liberal, and down homesy way. It was not an abstract theory to them
like it was for Gentlemen; it was literal truth.[22] No longer would somebody like the
Boston Shoemaker John Twelves Hewes stand on John Hancock’s porch with
his hat respectfully doffed, trembling in fear of speaking to his social
superior.[23] People had traditionally depended on
the great men in their locale for assistance, but now they were more inclined
to deal with their problems on their own.
The monarchical bonds of patronage were simply not as constraining as
they had historically been.
No longer
was society constrained by the bonds of a hierarchical society governed by
principles of benevolence and patronage.
From what had formerly been a monarchical society, that is a society
rigidly divided and informed by class, emerged a much less ordered
society. Prior to the
popularization of enlightenment ideas politicians were supposed to be
disinterested aristocrats with large land holdings. But now the principle of disinterest was dissolving. People no longer believed that those
not involved in the market place could know what was best for them. Aristocrats who did not share in the
economic foibles, or who did not engage in farming, butchering, could not know
what ordinary people faced in their daily routine. In addition, the leisurely life was no longer seen as
virtuous because it afforded the opportunity for reflection and study. Studying was laudable, but one had to
do more than that, or else he was accused of slothfulness and[JB1] evil.[24] No longer did people believe
that the elite knew what was best for everybody else. No longer would webs of patronage restrain from political
participation outside of his local community.[25] Instead people believed they could make
it on their own, and principles of equality, opportunity, commerce, work, and
competition were in place.[26]
People entered and began competing in the
marketplace because they believed that their life condition and economic status
was a function of their individual effort, not some preexisting moral and
social code. The enlightenment and
the resulting republicanism, the idea that government depended on the superior
will of the represented people, had taught that ordinary people were as equal
and had as much potential as their social superiors, and thus they began
asserting themselves. It was time
to take charge of their economic fate in the face of hard times. People were constantly moving, pushing
deeper into the backcountry and crowding along waterways and into cities in
search of the resources and market access necessary for their individual
success.[27] As more and more people began working
harder to improve their condition of life and their economic status, an
industrial energy was born. It became important to work, and to be industrious. Everywhere was heard the cry for labor
and commerce. A new individualist
and competitive spirit was born.
Whether you worked with your hands or your mind did not matter. All labor was equally virtuous and
necessary: it was part of the American struggle for upward mobility, progress,
property, and happiness.[28]
As result of this competition,
‘rugged individualism,’ and struggle for upward mobility,
“people increasingly felt so disconnected from one another and so
self-conscious of their distinct interests that they could not trust anyone
different or far removed from themselves to speak for them in government. American localist democracy grew out of
this pervasive mistrust.”[29] People trusted and voted for those
closest to them, and, when this happened, a “consciously pluralistic,
ethnic, interest-group politics” had emerged.[30] Every group felt they needed to be
included in government at the local level to make sure that their interests
were not supplanted by the interest of those with a stronger voice in
government. Eventually people
began to trust themselves to serve in higher levels of government instead of
relying on their social superiors.[31]
While aristocratic sorts were not
initially very supportive of ordinary people serving in government, the
trustworthiness of ordinary people became a common assumption, and it assumed
an aura of sophistication that was based on more than their simplicity and
naivete. In a monarchical society,
the common people were regarded as “but little superior to the untutored
herd,” but in the republic they were, as Cato wrote, “’the
best judges, whether things go ill or well with the Publick, for they were the
Publick.”[32] Within their communities, they were
moral barometers, measuring the level of satisfaction among the people, and
gradually upper class people begin to trust their judgment. With the onset of political change,
common folk were even more trustworthy because they clearly understood moral
principles in this time of confusion.
Ordinary people became accurate judges of the state of public affairs,
and was celebrated by aristocratic people like Thomas Jefferson. “State a
moral case to a ploughman and a professor,” said Jefferson,
“echoing Trenchard and Gordon’s ‘Cato’; the former will
decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been
led astray by artificial rules.”[33] The judgement of ordinary people was
now respected not only in judging the state of their own lives, but also in
evaluating moral conditions in the lives of others. Public opinion became the
authority that directed government and politics. People had clearly began to trust their own judgement, and
so had others. Within this trust,
this valuation of the judgement of ordinary people, notions of equality were
expressed.[34]
People because of enlightenment ideas,
their own industrial energy, and the trust of aristocratic people began to
believe they were equal in a very literal way. “Ordinary Americans came to believe that no one in a
basic down-to-earth and day-in-and-day-out manner was really better than anyone
else. That was equality as no
other nation has ever quite had it.”[35] In the words of John Adams, the
“certain Airs of Wisdom and Superiority” of the aristocracy and its
“Scorn and Contempt and turning up of the Nose” was suddenly less
popular than the reconciling notion of basic, folksy equality.[36] Benjamin Rush, a renowned aristocrat,
heartily declared: “human
nature is the same in all ages and countries, and all the differences we
perceive in its characters in respect to virtue and vice, knowledge and
ignorance, may be accounted for from climate, country, degrees of civilization,
forms of government, or accidental causes.”[37] In other words, Rush was asserting that
there was no intrinsic difference between people. If people changed their circumstances, they could experience
upward mobility and acquire an upper class position. They were capable of serving in government. Even James Madison, though he had severe
doubts about the moral capabilities of the people,[38]
acknowledged a role for ordinary folk in government when he declared that
ordinary people must have enough “virtue and intelligence to select men
of virtue and wisdom” or “no theoretical checks, no form of
government, can render us secure.”[39] No longer would ordinary people be
“ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and
cloathed like swine and hounds.”[40] It was suddenly popular to embrace an
absolute equality. Republicanism had initiated a new respect for the common
sense of common people. Ordinary
people were believed to have a clear and simple, but not simplistic, view of
life that benefited them in the eyes of the gentry. Ordinary folk interpreted these changing evaluations of
themselves as evidence that they too should be directly represented in
government. As ordinary people
began asserting themselves in government, they took with them their own
specific interests.[41]
With the integration of ordinary people
into government, interest became an essential characteristic of
government. Minute local
interests, often including those of the elected official himself, were brought
into government. Parties had
formed, and partisanship was a legitimate part of government. These new
practices made it possible for ordinary people to enjoy greater participation
in government and politics. The
government was built upon trust, and people now trusted only those similar to
themselves.[42] This phenomena is revealed in the
composition of the congressional delegation from Philadelphia and the
surrounding area. These Pennsylvanians,
wrote Benjamin Latrobe in 1806,
sent to congress not one man of
letters. One of them indeed is a
lawyer but of no eminence, another a good Mathematician, but when elected he
was a Clerk in a bank. The others
are plain farmers. From the next
county is sent a blacksmith, and from just over the river a Butcher. Our state legislature does not contain
one individual of superior talents.
The fact is, that superior talents actually excite distrust, and the
experience of the world perhaps does not encourage the people to trust men of
genius. . . . This government of what may be called, an unlettered majority,
has put down even that ideal rank which manners had established, excepting in
our great cities depending on commerce and crowded with foreigners, where the
distinction between what is called the Gentleman, and others still subsists,
and produces circles of association separate from each other. . . . In
Philadelphia even this distinction has almost disappeared, those who expect it
having early excluded themselves from the present race of well dressed men and
women.[43]
The
insertion of the “unlettered majority” into politics reveals the
extent to which ordinary people distrusted “gentleman.” Ordinary people now understood
themselves to be equal, and they also believed there was virtue in being
ordinary. They took ideas of
equality and opportunity further than either Federalists or Anti-Federalists
expected by running for and acquiring leadership positions. No minute local interest group, whether
they be butchers, blacksmiths, farmers, or clerks, were willing to trust and
vote for anyone who was not similar to themselves, and could thus understand
the challenges they confronted.
Instead, they voted in their own kind. This insertion of interest into government was supported by
Jefferson’s notion “that the public good is best promoted by the
exertion of each individual seeking his own good in his own way.”[44] This egalitarian principle of
individual assertion characterized the democratic spirit of the early
nineteenth century, and introduced interest into government.
Interest in government became an
accomplished fact when office-holders were offered salaries. The economic state of affairs and the
increasing role for government simply made it too difficult to run a plantation
or a law office while holding political office. One could not do both well, and therefore some people
thought representatives should be paid to ease this burden. People are paid for all their other
services, people reasoned, and so why not pay them for serving in
government? The argument for not
paying them was, of course, clear.
Paying elected officials would introduce interest into government, and
attract the wrong sorts of men. Limiting office-holding to those who did not have
to work or did not need pay, however, excluded the poor and middling ranks from
leadership roles; this enabled aristocratic despotism, which ordinary folk were
working so hard against, to dominate.
The argument against paying officials was still deeply rooted in the
notion that government ought to consist only of the best people, and that
indeed some people were better than others. Those opposed to political salaries were still convinced
that volunteerism created more virtuous leadership.[45]
The notion that representatives would
somehow be made more virtuous by volunteerism drew the ire of John Adams who
declared “every public man should be honestly paid for his
services;” only then would “offices would be founded on justice,
not gratitude.”[46] Adams believed that “offices in
general ought to yield as honest a subsistence, and as clear an independence as
professions, callings, trades, or farms.”[47] In other words, officeholders needed to
earn a living like everybody else
This was a democratic idea, and this idea made it possible for ordinary
people to compete with their social superiors for elected office. When office-holding had been
characterized by volunteerism and disinterest, there was no way ordinary people
could afford to run for office.
But now that officials were offered salaries, the playing field had been
leveled for all who wished to participate in government. People who had formerly been involved
only within their communities could now participate in government
generally. Providing salaries for
elected officials is a demonstration of how remarkably democratic society had
become, and it also solidified a role for interest in government by providing
the opportunity for ordinary people to participate in government at all levels.[48]
Clearly, Anti-Federalist declarations that ordinary people
would not tolerate infringements on their rights were right, but their fears
that it would take an aristocratic dominance of government to stimulate them
into action had been wrong.
Ordinary people did not wait for aristocrats to dominate them. They had been involved at the local
level, but, when they perceived problems with the representation of their
interests at the state level, and eventually at the Federal level, they took
action. Ordinary people begin to expand
their political participation from their local communities to all levels of
government. No longer would they
depend on the aristocracy to solve their problems. The Constitution did not deny them a place in government,
and they simply assumed that, as equals of aristocratic sorts, they were
entitled to serve in government.
People had fought hard for the rights they earned during the revolution,
and they were not about to relinquish them.[49] Perhaps they had listened to the
Anti-Federalist rhetoric regarding the role of the aristocracy and decided that
they would assert themselves before that happened. In any case, as one analyzes the constitutional debate, it
becomes clear that Federalists thought aristocrats would continue to act
virtuously in government, and, in contrast, Anti-Federalists feared future
corruption. While Anti-Federalists
involved in the debate did not think the direct participation of ordinary
people was absolutely necessary, they were not at all comfortable with an
aristocratic dominance of government.
The Constitutional debate oozes with Anti-Federalist criticism and fear
of the aristocracy’s influence in government. This fear of the aristocracy began right from the beginning
with the process of ratification.
II. The Ratification Process: Fears of an
Aristocratic Conspiracy
The Constitutional
debate was loaded with Anti-Federalist concern over the role of the aristocracy
in government, and this concern began with the manner in which the Constitution
had been drafted, the way it was to be ratified, and the arguments that
Federalists made to procure support for it. While the aristocratic class was not as large or powerful as
it was in Britain,[50]
it certainly was a political force to be reckoned with. During the debate over the merits and
demerits of the Constitution, the potential role for the Aristocracy in the
government became the prevailing and most pervasive concern of the
Anti-Federalists.[51] Anti-Federalists feared that the
Constitution reeked of aristocratic influence and possible corruption. The ever-perceptive and cryptic Patrick
Henry had even refused to attend the convention in Philadelphia because,
according to American folklore, he “smelt a rat.”[52] Whether Henry actually said that or not
is irrelevant. It is clear, however,
that many Anti-Federalists believed the whole constitution-making process
reeked of aristocracy.
Anti-Federalists feared that the structure of the proposed government
provided ample opportunity for the aristocracy to assume a domineering a role
in government. Had the
Constitution provided greater representation, a better balance of power, and
included a bill of rights, Anti-Federalists might have tolerated the fashion in
which it was crafted. But since
nearly every facet of the Constitution represented an opportunity for
aristocratic dominance of government, Anti-Federalists were more inclined to
criticize the aristocratic influences driving its construction. Anti-Federalist criticism regarding the
aristocratic nature of the Constitution began with the manner in which the
Constitution was drafted, the ratification method chosen, and the arguments and
strategies used by Federalists to procure support for it.[53]
The manner in which the Constitution had
been created was particularly irksome to Anti-Federalists. The delegates to the Philadelphia
convention had been appointed by the state legislatures for the express purpose
of amending the Articles of Confederation to address international trade and
commerce. Instead, they had locked
themselves behind closed doors and sworn to vows of secrecy. This behavior reeked of conspiracy and
impropriety to many Anti-Federalists.[54]
In his editorial to the
New York Journal on November 24, 1787, “A Citizen” outlines the
process of calling a convention, drafting a constitution, and the origins of
the authority for doing so.[55] The convention was called by the
respected legislatures upon recommendation by the Continental Congress to amend
the Articles of Confederation. It
was not to create a new constitution.
The state legislatures did not have the power to authorize the
constitutional delegates to abridge the state constitutions. The state legislatures could not grant
authority to the constitutional delegates that they themselves did not
have. Therefore the new constitution
was created illegally. And through
this action, a precedent for extending the powers granted to government bodies
had been set. The esteemed and
virtuous “Gentlemen” who framed the Constitution had, like many
other government officials previously, had over-stepped their legal
bounds. It is no wonder then that
Anti-Federalists feared a similar sort of power grab could occur in the new
government, especially since the Constitution was deliberately vague in the
powers it vested in the Federal Government. What really facilitated the fears of Anti-Federalists,
however, was the fact that the members of the Constitutional convention had not
represented the interests of everybody in the Confederation, and that they had
conducted their business in secret.
“A Citizen” goes on to declare that the constitutional
convention consisted of an “imperfect representation of the people, both
as to numbers and descriptions.”[56] The “small” number of
representatives for each state were “principally taken from commercial
cities, and composed chiefly of merchants, practitioners of the law, and
judicial officers.”[57] Nearly half of the delegates were
lawyers or other sorts of judicial officials. This elite group of people had “shut their doors
against their fellow citizens, and laid themselves under obligations of
secrecy.”[58] The illegality, secrecy, and extension
of power caused Ant-Federalists to declare that the aristocratic government was
acting as many other corrupt governments in other nations had in the past. In drafting the Constitution, the
authority of the state legislatures had been extended. Commercial interests were
over-represented, and the people had not been allowed to witness the
proceedings. The precedent for the
aristocracy acting beyond their authority had been set, and this gave rise to
Anti-Federalist fears about an aristocratically dominated government. The arguments and strategies
Federalists used to procure support for the Constitution further perpetuated
these Anti-Federalist fears.
The Federalist framers
were, for the most part, unrepentant about illegally creating a new
constitution, and to the alarm of many Anti-Federalists, they unabashedly
advocated for a hasty adoption of the Constitution, refusing to entertain the
state amendments until after the Constitution had been ratified as a whole.[59] The primary Federalist ratification
argument in favor of a hasty adoption was that the prevailing economic crisis
warranted it. According to the
Federalists, the future of the confederation depended on immediate commercial
reform, and the power to enact this reform lay in the new Constitution.[60]
The Federalist argument that economic
conditions threatened national security and made immediate ratification
necessary, is articulated by “A True Friend” in a letter to Virginia
Independent Chronicle. In the course of our short existence as
an independent confederation, we have not seen “our agriculture, our
commerce flourish, our happiness and our inward tranquility increase, our
reputation and our credit enlarge and extend itself abroad.”[61] Instead we have noticed how “our
evils have accumulated,” placing our existence in danger.[62] The existence of the independent states
was threatened because we continued to consume British tea, beer, china,
potatoes, cheese, salt beef, candles, and butter. Consuming the very goods Continental soil and industry could
produce as well enabled Britain to continue to dominate their former colonies. It was “very obvious” to
“A True Friend” that the states had “enjoyed none of the
great advantages, which independence promised,” and instead was being
“deprived of the assistance, advances and credit, which the metropolis,
used to sell us so dear, and which all nations would be so eager to offer
us” because current commercial policy made it difficult for creditors in
the metropolitan areas and in foreign nations to find “a part of the
immense profits.”[63] Current commercial policy made it
difficult to make money in the loan business at a time when credit and loans
were needed. This problem was
caused by a lack of uniform commercial policy among the confederated states,
and a lingering allegiance to Britain.
The lack of “a fixed and combined
plan of commerce for the thirteen states analogous to that of other
nations” had, according to “A True Friend” enabled British
traders to make individual state economies dependent on trade with Britain, and
then subsequently exploit the resulting competition between states for this
trade. Because states had
“passed acts to cross and oppose one another reciprocally,”
“European nations, and principally Great Britain, had “preserved
all their advantages” and kept us “under the slavery of their
prohibitive laws.”[64] Despite the revolution for
independence, the confederate states were still under the “prohibitive
British influence.”[65] According to the Federalists, this
discombobulated trade policy created a precarious economy, which was leading to
social and political unrest.
The economic situation was so serious,
claimed Federalists, that a rebellious political energy had been unleashed that
was dividing colonials socially.
“A True Friend,” presented this Federalist concern by
asserting that
Our
public funds have fallen into contempt; our most sacred engagements loose the
4-5ths of their value, . . . the course of justice has been stopped by riotous
mobs, . . . the public jails have been broken open; the office of titles and
records has been burned. . . . The Planter accuses the merchant of being the
cause of his distress; the latter complains of the former; the state is in
confusion, and is threatened with total ruin.[66]
The economic situation had indeed
inspired mob action, and people affected in the debt chain were pointing
accusatory fingers at one another.
Indeed people were dissatisfied with being saddled with debts, and this
dissatisfaction was stimulating political action. But on the surface, this action was very similar to the mob
action that had occurred traditionally in monarchical societies, including the
colonies, when economic hardships arose, or when “the people”
needed to express themselves.[67] That such action would occur in a more
representative republican form of government was hardly surprising, nor was it
necessarily an indication that the confederation was failing. After all, even the largest and most
famous uprising, Shay’s Rebellion, had been easily stopped by government
authorities.[68] But still Federalists feared this
political energy. Why? Because the mob action now had
distinctly democratic political ramifications.
The Federalist fear of mob uprisings is
important because such activity now created a political energy that did not
stop when the uprising was put down, and this energy was explicitly
democratic. This change in the
effect of mob action is revealed for the first time in “Shay’s
Rebellion. Daniel Shay, a
Massachusetts’s farmer, organized fellow farmers and friends to march on
various government buildings in protest of the debts they were being forced to
pay. The state legislature had not
dealt with the problem despite the cries of the farmers, and thus the
“Shayites” resorted to mob action. The physical part of the rebellion was put down easily
enough, but what really disturbed aristocratic sorts was the resultant
political energy. The next fall,
the state legislature was dramatically transformed, and people more sympathetic
to the interest of the farmers were elected. People had participated democratically in government in
rural towns, farming communities, and counties, but their interests did not
traditionally affect the state governments in such a dramatic and explicit
fashion. Their interests had not
been so directly represented at the state level. Now they were.
Federalists were afraid of this democratic energy, and thus they wanted
to quickly stabilize the economy in hopes of preventing the ‘grazing
multitude’ from becoming involved in government. [69] Federalists wanted no part of
such riotous democratic energy because it threatened the notion of
disinterested government.
Therefore when Federalists like “A True Friend” referenced
the social disarray caused by economic problems, they were not necessary
revealing their virtuous concern for the confederation. Instead they were trying to preserve
the traditional social order, and this was definitely not democratic.
Federalists tried to hide the true
aristocratic source of their concern over the dissolving social order by saying
it threatened the future of the confederation. The magnitude of social agitation induced by economic
conditions simply made it too dangerous for the confederation to wait for a new
convention that had the legal authority to create a new constitution, or even
to attach amendments to the current one.
According to “A True Friend” and the rest of the
Federalists, the independence, longevity, and authority of the several states
was in danger, and a new government with the power to provide uniform
regulation of commerce and international trade was needed to attain freedom now
and to ensure it for the future.
Anyone who opposed the Constitution in lieu of such of such economic and
social unrest, “A True Friend” declared, was a self-interested
enemy of liberty and ought to be ignored.[70]
Federalists admitted that the
Constitution was not a perfect document, but they tried to argue that economic
conditions warranted prompt action.
Instead of worrying about possible aristocratic dominance, one should
recognize how hard the “venerable fathers” had worked to draft a
constitution based on republican principles, and appreciate the economic
benefits the new Constitution would inevitably bring. Federalists declared that the Framers of the Constitution,
who were mostly Federalists themselves, had already created a government that
confronted the most important economic problems while preserving the liberty
inherent in a representative government.[71]
Anti-Federalists,
however, were not so sure liberties were protected in the new Constitution, and
they were certain the economic conditions were not as serious as Federalists
claimed they were. Consequently, Ant-Federalists
opposed a hasty adoption. They
listened to Federalist descriptions of economic conditions in disbelief. Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists
generally favored the establishment of a federal government to address problems
of commerce, currency, debt, and international and interstate relations. Both agreed that the Articles of
Confederation, which had united the separate colonies during the revolution and
the few years thereafter, were no longer strong enough to deal with commercial
problems. The Continental
Congress needed to be able to impose tariffs, and regulate foreign trade, and
something needed to be done to address the growing problem of indebtedness that
trickled down from international merchants to planters to the small tenant
farmers enjoying the benefits of patronage. The general consensus among all people was that the Articles
of Confederation needed to be strengthened to deal with these issues; the
Articles did indeed need amending.
But when the framers had rushed off and created a whole new
constitution, Anti-Federalists wanted to move forward cautiously with
ratification. The economy was bad,
said Anti-Federalists, but not bad enough to place our liberties in danger. They believed a hasty ratification
process was designed to scare people into supporting the Constitution without
considering what it did to their liberties. Ant-Federalists were concerned about the ramifications of
the Constitution, and thus they asserted that Federalists must be rushing the
process because they were trying to swindle the public out of their inalienable
rights and liberties.
Anti-Federalists believed that, by
exciting the people with possibility of getting out of debt, Federalists hoped
to entice supporters for the Constitution. In rushing to support it, the people would ignore real
problems with the Constitution.
Many Anti-Federalists, like the unknown author of a letter to the Massachusetts
Gazette in February of
1788, understood this Federalist strategy within their perception of
history. According to this
Anti-Federalist writer, it “has been custom of tyrants and their
dependents, in all ages . . . to shut the door against free inquiry,”
saying “now is the critical moment which must be seized, or all will be
lost.”[72] Anti-Federalists did not think the
economic situation demanded such hasty action, and therefore it did not make
sense to risk changing their political “condition for the worse.”[73] To ensure that this did not happen,
this ghost writer said the people must approach the Constitution
cautiously. It is the
“fickle and ardent, in any community” that become “the proper
tools for establishing despotick government. But it is deliberate and thinking men, [sic] who establish
and secure governments.”[74] It was imperative to consider the Constitution
cautiously, and “inquire whether it will probably be a blessing or a
curse to this people.”[75] Because of the manner in which
ratification was being rushed by Federalists, Anti-Federalists feared that it
could turn out to be a curse. They
hoped that people would ignore the economic situation when considering the
Constitution, and they sought to undermine the Federalist argument that the
Constitution would somehow alleviate the economic burden.
Implicit in the Federalist argument that
economic conditions made immediate ratification necessary, is the notion that
the Constitution would in fact address these problems. Eventually, through acts of congress,
the Constitution would indeed help to stabilize the economy. But Anti-Federalists claimed that
Federalists were over-stating the economic benefits. A “Plebian”
was one such Anti-Federalist who saw the inherent fallibility of the Federalist argument for rapid
ratification and against slowing the process with amendments. The Federalist argument that the
Constitution would help solve economic problems was ridiculed by “A
Plebian.” According to
“A Plebian,” Federalists told people that, with the passage of the
Constitution, “Commerce is to expand her wings, and bear our productions
to all the ports in the world” and “Money is to pour into our
country through every channel.”[76] Such an explosion of commerce, the
Federalist argument went, would supposedly stimulate the creation of industry
and virtually eliminate debt and unemployment. In addition, said a “Plebian,” the “Arts
and manufacturers [would] rear their heads, and every mechanic [would] find
full employ.”[77] And within such a flourishing economy,
those with debts would “find [an] easy means to procure money to pay
them.”[78] Even if they could not find a means to
pay them, there was no real worry because “all our public debts are soon
to be discharged” and “public burdens and taxes are to be
lightened.”[79] By talking about economic benefits in
such a manner, Federalists misled people, and Anti-Federalists like “A
Plebian” rushed to illustrate this.
“A Plebian” and many other
Anti-Federalists believed that amusing people with illusionary economic
benefits caused people not to fully analyze the Constitution. False rhetoric about the economic benefits
of the Constitution, “diverted . . . many honest and well meaning people
. . . from contemplating its [the Constitution’s] true nature, or
considering whether it will not endanger their liberties, and work
oppression.”[80] According to “A Plebian,”
Federalists hoped to procure support for the Constitution by embellishing the
economic benefits. The small
farmers who were so eager to get out of debt were susceptible to such claims. But the truth was, Anti-Federalist like
“A Plebian” believed, that taxes and debts would have to be paid;
and it would take time for the economy to strengthen. Anti-Federalists were confident that once people realized
this, they would be adamantly in favor of amendments. As it was, however, people were clinging to any bit of hope
regarding their economic situation, and hence they were all-too-ready to
embrace the notion that Constitution would stabilize the economy, and enable it
to flourish again.
Anti-Federalists worked diligently to caution people that the economic
benefits were not so rosy, and that if they supported the Constitution for
economic reasons, they were falling prey to age-old government contrivances
that ultimately induced people to sacrifice their liberty.
As they argued that Constitution could
rob people of their inalienable rights, however, Anti-Federalists had to be
careful of not insulting the honorable gentleman who had framed and or
supported the Constitution. Doing
so would be a violation of the gentlemanly code of conduct, and would in
essence result in political suicide.[81] Therefore Anti-Federalists spoke
cautiously about aristocratic corruption.
Most often Anti-Federalists were forced to speak about the potential for
future corruptibility.
Anti-Federalists like “Agrippa” encouraged people
considering the Constitution to be forward looking, and not to “sacrifice
their liberty” in a state of “passion.”[82] Anti-Federalists acknowledged the
virtue of current leaders, but said we should not “flatter ourselves that
we shall always have good men to govern us.” If we are at all like other nations, said
“Agrippa,” “we
shall have more bad men than good ones to exercise [the] extensive
powers” inherent in the Constitution, and “that circumstance alone
will corrupt them.”[83] Gentlemen “fancy themselves the
vicegerents of God,” but in
the new government “they will resemble him only in power” and will
eventually “depart from his wisdom and goodness.”[84] Even with the best of intentions and a
virtuous core, gentlemen could not resist corruption according to
“Agrippa.” Anti-Federalists believed that anybody, if given too much
power, was likely to abuse it.
Despite Anti-Federalist attempts to soften their claims about a
potential for corrupt leadership, Federalists took such claims as an insult to
the esteemed gentlemen who had crafted the Constitution.
When Anti-Federalists raised the question
of aristocratic influence and subsequent corruptibility, Federalists accused
them of insulting the framers. Not
only did Federalists defend the honor of the “venerable fathers,”
they championed the constitutional endorsements of notable sages like
Washington and Franklin as reasons why people should trust that the
Constitution adequately protected their rights. This strategy of playing on patriarchal conceptions was
effective for Federalists because people trusted that such venerable fathers
were above corruption and self-interest.
If such men were in favor of it Federalist reasoned, the fears of a
aristocratic conspiracy to take over government must be absurd. If there was any evidence that the
aristocracy could dominate the new government, such Gentlemen would have
sounded the alarm. Therefore
Anti-Federalist fears were simply absurd.
In fact, said Federalists with a tinge of sarcasm, they were probably
opposed to the Constitution because they were either benefiting from current
economic conditions, or enemies of liberty themselves.
“Amator Patriae,” a
Federalist, responding to the “The Republican Federalist,” an
Anti-Federalists who believed in federation but not the Constitution, expressed such criticism of the
Anti-Federalists. He encouraged
those deliberating on the plan not to be “led away by the artful logick
of men . . . who, to say the best of them, wish to hide their vices in the map
of publick enormities.”[85] These Anti-Federalists, he believed,
were simply inept paranoids who were not capable of virtuous leadership. These sorts of men, “Amator Patriae”
continued, always “wait for an opportunity to raise ‘their
greatness on their country’s ruin,” and therefore people must
reflect on the Constitution “candidly, dispassionately, and
impartially” so that “party prejudices and local views” do
not “sap the foundation of the fairest temple which was ever erected to
the goddess of liberty.”[86] With such glorious rhetoric,
Federalists defended the honor of the Framers. They thought it was lamentable that, in the words of an
unknown correspondent to the Massachusetts Gazette on January 18, perfectly honorable
gentlemen were “subject to the jeer of those who [stood] upon the
punctilios of honour,” opposing “the best plan that ever was
calculated to establish the rights and privileges of a free people.”[87]
Even George Washington, in a letter to
Henry Knox on the fifteenth of October, got into act of slandering
Anti-Federalists who dared oppose the new plan of government. The former General believed that
“the major part of them [Anti-Federalists] it is to be feared will be
governed by sinister and self important considerations on which no arguments
will work conviction.”[88] Through this attack on the credibility
of most Anti-Federalists, Washington revealed that he thought most
Anti-Federalists were self-interested and closed minded. Other Federalist, even more irritated
than Washington, went further than merely questioning the integrity of
Anti-Federalists.
The Anti-Federalists, seethed these
Federalists bitterly, would ultimately suffer affliction because of their
ill-considered opposition to the Constitution. A unknown correspondent to the Massachusetts Gazette expressed this Federalist anger. If the opponents are effective in
thwarting ratification, he declared, “they will soon feel all those
miseries they now affect to despise.” And if they do not
“give up those unjust pursuits in which they may be
engaged,” pursuits reaping economic benefits immorally, “they will
soon be stopped in their career” and “consigned to infamy and
reproach.” Federalists were
trying to establish a “Pillar” of liberty, and they believed that
if it “should fall . . . instead of being fixed and established,”
those who “foolishly and ignorantly opposed its erection [would] be
crushed under its ruins!”
Federalists firmly believed that the framers had created a temple of
liberty with the Constitution, and that anybody opposed to it must be an enemy
of liberty. For their opposition,
Federalists like Amator Patraie said of Anti-Federalists, “Mourn,
ye! mourn, ye! for, by the
multitude of your sins are ye doomed to affliction!”[89] With such rhetoric, Federalists
staunchly defended the honor of the constitutional framers. There was, they claimed, no threat to
liberty. The real threat to
liberty, Federalists believed, lay in the economic and the opposition of the Federalists,
not in the corruptibility of aristocratic sorts who would serve in government. Federalists continued to campaign
tirelessly that economic conditions warranted immediate ratification, and that
any fear of a loss of liberty should be assuaged by noting the venerable people
who supported the Constitution.
The
Federalist defense of their campaign strategies, however, did little to pacify
Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists
felt they had justifiable criticisms of the Constitution, and they did not
think the failure of this constitution would prevent a second, more balanced,
attempt to create a federal government.
The notion that society would be ruined by a failure to ratify the
Constitution, and that they would be somehow responsible for this chaos, was
simply not logical in the eyes of the Anti-Federalists. It seemed absurd to Anti-Federalists
that they were being castigated for simply daring to suggest that future
leaders could be corrupted by the extensive power vested in them. They were not arguing that current
leaders were corrupt, they were merely arguing that the potential for
corruptibility was strong.
Considering the experience of people with government throughout history,
it seemed inevitable that a government so heavily vested with power would
become corrupt if there were not stringent checks and balances against it.[90] Anti-Federalists like
“Ezra” knew of “no infallibility on earth,” and should
it be possibly to import some, “they would,” through a
“diversity of climate, and other occurring circumstances, . . . loose
their infallibility, and become as other men.”[91] In lieu of this understanding of the
fallibility of humanity, Anti-Federalists thought it absurd to defend the honor
of “gentlemen” so devoutly, and it was even more ridiculous to
champion the names of respectable men to procure support for the Constitution.
Even as they ridiculed such
campaign strategies, however, Anti-Federalists like “The Yeomanry of
Massachusetts” remained confident that backcountry people would not be
“be overborned by the weight of names, however revered. ‘ALL MEN ARE BORN FREE AND
EQUAL,’” and consequently “every man hath a natural and
unalienable right to his own opinion” and “ought not to be
stigmatized with the epithets of [the] tenacious and dogmatical” for
asserting this right.[92] The principles of equality and
freedom of speech were held dear by Anti-Federalists, and they rushed to defend
them as Federalists chastised them for criticizing the gentlemen who had framed
the Constitution.
As Anti-Federalist critiqued the
aristocratic influences in Federalists campaign strategies, they revealed their
democratic sympathies.
Anti-Federalists believed everyone should be entitled to free expression
and to the freedom of speech. They
recognized that the economic argument posited by Federalists was faulty, even
if they did not explicitly criticize the Federalists for fearing the democratic
energy that was created from it.
Anti-Federalists believed that the Federalist strategy of citing
respectable names was designed to dissuade proper criticism, even if they did
not note the degree to which such thinking adhered to monarchical conceptions
of class. But most importantly, as
they cried out against Federalists campaign strategies, Anti-Federalists
expressed confidence in “the thinking of the yeomanry of the
country.”[93] They were confident that ordinary
farmers would not be “cajoled out of their senses” by Federalist
arguments.[94] “They are willing to have an
energetick, federal government--but they are not willing to have one, which
savors so strongly of aristocracy, as the present” one. [95] Anti-Federalists had confidence that
ordinary people would reject the Constitution because it savored of
aristocracy, and, had a popular vote been taken, they would have probably
rejected it, and the Constitution would have been defeated. But all was not lost in the passage of
the Constitution because ordinary people had more confidence in their rights
then either Federalists or Anti-Federalists. Both of the latter two groups had thought it would take an
encroachment on their rights to make ordinary people rebel, but in truth
ordinary folks assumed they had the right to participate directly. Though Anti-Federalists had been wrong
about what would motivate people to claim their rights, they were more
comfortable with the outcome. The
Anti-Federalist concern with the aristocratic nature of Federalist campaign
strategies, and with free expression in the discussion, reveals the democratic
tenor of their argument. They were
not as confident as Federalists were that aristocrats could stay in touch, or
that they were even currently aware of all the needs of their social
inferiors. Therefore
Anti-Federalists wanted to impose limitations on them to make sure people were
represented fully. Though
Anti-Federalists were unduly worried that ordinary people would not stand up
for themselves, they were still more democratic than Federalists because they
recognized the skills of ordinary folk and explicitly wanted their interests
represented. Indeed,
Anti-Federalists were concerned about the aristocratic influence inherent in
the manner in which the Constitution was drafted, the method chosen for
ratification, and strategies used to procure support for it, and this concern
over the aristocracy had democratic undertones.
These democratic undertones reverberated
stronger when Ant-Federalists turned their attention to other aspects of the
Constitution. Their fears of the
aristocracy accompanied their concerns with the extent of powers vested in
congress, inadequate representation in government, the lack of a bill of
rights, and the deterioration of state rights. In nearly every facet of the Constitution, they saw
opportunities for the aristocracy too assume too large a role in government,
and thus they argued for local control.
They wanted people closest to the people to make the decisions. Beginning with Shay’s rebellion,
this is what ordinary people were after.
And Anti-Federalists were likewise more comfortable with placing the loci
of power closer to the people in local and state governments.
When Anti-Federalist analyzed the
Constitution, one of their primary criticisms was that state authority, which
kept the locus of power close to the people, was undermined. This was a particular concern because
popular republican ideology held that state and local governments could best
understand and represent the needs of the people.[96] Anti-Federalist embraced state
government because they believed in its local emphasis. State government enabled more people to
participated directly in government as leaders, or as vocal citizens and
voters. A desire for local
authority and for the involvement of more citizens was certainly
democratic. It expressed
confidence in the ability of people to govern themselves, and doubted that a distant
government could accurately represent people because it would inevitably be
dominated by aristocrats who could not fully understand local concerns. The new Constitution, Anti-Federalists
believed, did not articulate a belief in the ability of people to govern
themselves. It was concerned with
representation, said Anti-Federalists, but it wrongly assumed that aristocratic
representatives could speak for their whole districts. The Constitution had not created a
federation of states in which the states retained authority, but rather it had
produced a national government derived directly from the people.[97] The preamble to the Constitution said
“we the people,” and not “we the states” create this
new Federal government, and this could only mean, thought Anti-Federalists,
that the state governments would eventually be robbed of their power.[98] A loss of state authority entailed a
loss of locale, democratic control, and hence Anti-Federalists opposed it.
Federalists insisted that the
Anti-Federalists fears that the Constitution created a national government
which endangered state authority were ridiculous. They believed they had carefully deliberated over the
Constitution, eventually producing a plan that created a Federal government
with only a few national characteristics.[99] James Madison, regarded by many as “the father of the
Constitution,” carefully analyzed the Constitution in terms of the
“foundation” of its ratification, the “origins” of its
power, the “operation” of its power, the “extent” of
its power, and its authoritative mode of introducing amendments” in
Federalist 39, and concluded that “the proposed Constitution” was
“neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of
both.”[100] “In its foundation, it is
federal, and not national,” declared Madison, because each state had the
opportunity to reject it via its supreme authority: the people.[101] The people, and not the legislatures,
were the supreme authority of the states, and therefore the Constitution had
been submitted to them Madison and
the Federalists went on to say that the Constitution was “partly federal,
and partly national” in the origins of its power.[102] The House was national because it was
elected by the people, and the Senate and Executive were federal because they
were elected by the states. In the
“extent” of its powers, Madison declared the proposed Constitution
was federal because “its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated
objects only.”[103] Finally, in its authority over
amendments, it was “neither wholly federal, nor wholly national”
because it depended on three forth of the states, and not just on a majority of
the people like it would if it were national.[104] Madison’s careful analysis of the
National versus Federal question reveals that Federalists, acting within the
prevailing republican tradition, had certainly sought to recognize state
authority and to subsequently balance the power government.[105] They had attempted to craft a Federal
government with some national characteristics, and they broke new ground as
they did this. When
Anti-Federalists declared that the Constitution was a national government which
eroded state authority, Federalists insisted that the manner in which they
blended Federal and National characteristics did indeed balance authority properly
between the state governments and the new Federal one. Federalists remained confident that
most powers would remain with state governments, and that the virtuous
aristocracy would not make tyrannical use of the powers that they had been
granted. Like Madison, they would
cite just how carefully the orientation of the new government had been
constructed. But Anti-Federalists
rejected these Federalist claims because the power of the state government was
not acknowledged explicitly in the Constitution. Furthermore, the strongest Federal components of the
Constitution were also the branches that the aristocracy would be mostly likely
to dominate. The Senate and the
Executive were federal according to Madison and the rest of the Federalists,
but these branches would inevitably be dominated by the aristocracy and thus
would not represent the people anyway.
The Anti-Federalists were not concerned with the state governments as an
institution, but rather as a conduit for the representation of local and democratic
interests. Therefore they wanted
state authority explicitly recognized and defended so that in the event of
future corruption in the Federal government, state rights and the rights of the
people would be protected. The
claim here is not that Federalists deliberately wanted to destroy hard-won
rights. They certainly wanted to
defend the inalienable rights of people, but rather that Federalists were
simply much less wary of putting these rights in danger than Anti-Federalists
were. Anti-Federalists wanted the
Federal orientation of the Constitution to be obvious, and when it was not,
they feared a central and not a national government had been created.
The Constitution, insisted
Anti-Federalists, created a national government, not the desired federal
government. Anti-Federalists were opposed to a national government because, in
adhering to prevailing ideological principles, they feared it was too far
removed from the people, and undermined state and local authority. Instead they were in favor of a Confederation. A Federal government would be composed
of states, and Federal power was checked by the superior state authority. Since representation in state legislatures
inevitably came from smaller districts in which people were fairly well
acquainted with each other, the interests of all people were represented
better. And if these interests
directed the behavior of the state legislatures, it would be difficult for a
Federal government to infringe on the rights of the people. A national government, Anti-Federalists
believed, would not be checked by state authority. Instead its power was derived directly from the people.[106] From a twentieth century standpoint, or
even a mid nineteenth viewpoint, this appears to be democratic. But as “A Farmer” articulates
in his essays published in the Maryland Gazette, Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike
knew that only aristocratic sorts with enough name recognition and respect
would get elected to this more “dignified” national body.[107] The national government would be the
more prestigious body because it would speak for the whole of the states and be
recognized by foreign governments.
Therefore it was inevitable that aristocrats and other influential
people would be serve in this body.
These aristocratic sorts
could not possibly understand minute local interests, and would be consumed by
larger sectional concerns and foreign affairs. According to “A Farmer,” aristocrats in the
Federal government would be more “desirous of cutting a figure in
history” than with meeting the specific needs farmers, butchers, and
craftsmen in various localities.[108] A national legislature would not have
the time to address road system in some backwoods county, nor could they
understand the economic hardships that lower class people endured. National congressman simply would not
have time to cater to their interests and concerns. Instead, larger issues would be at stake, and these issues
would be of interest to large land owners, merchants, and those directly
involved in the larger economy. In
a national legislature, regional or sectional interests would conflate, and in
the attempts to reconcile such large interests the more specific local
interests within a region could not be adequately addressed.[109] Local interests would not be represented
in a national government. In fact,
the infusion of locale interest was specifically guarded against because
Federalists wanted balanced government in which no specific interest, locale or
regional, could dominate. A
national government could not adequately serve the needs of a specific locale,
and thus such distant control was treated with caution and suspicion. Within the popular understandings and
social orientations of the time, a national government could not possibly be as
democratic as Anti-Federalists wished it to be. Because it could not represent local interests, a national
government would ultimately entail a failure of representation. This failure of representation, this
failure of a national legislature to stay in touch with local people, could
ultimately lead to corruption according to Anti-Federalists.
When
criticizing the Constitution, Anti-Federalists feared that such a national
government, with all its potential for a failure of representation and
subsequent corruption, had been created.
Anti-Federalists feared that the new government was indeed national and
had been given too much power. Its
power would reign supreme over the states and enable people disconnected with
local problems to legislate over them, and in the process people would lose
their right to representation. The
state governments in which their representation was founded, would be ordered
around by a superior national government.[110] It was evident to Anti-Federalists like
“Agrippa” that “the new constitution proposes to delegate
greater powers than are granted to our own [state] government[s].”[111] This need not have occurred. The problem with the Articles of
Confederation was not that the state governments did “not have power
enough” to give them, but rather that the power over commerce and
international policy had simply not been given. The states, in competing against each other for foreign
trade opportunities, had been “disposed to make a bad use of what power
they [had].”[112] The result of this unfortunate use of state
power was economic disarray. But
Anti-Federalists were confident that a commercial agreement between states
would fix the problem. The states
simply needed to agree on how they would collectively use their power over
commerce. The failure of the state
governments to properly deal with international commercial policy is an example
of how an improper use of power could create problems. To attempt to solve this problem by
setting “up a government possess’d of much more extensive powers
than the present, and subject to much smaller checks” was a poor way of
dealing with the problem according to Anti-Federalists like
“Agrippa.”[113]
Anti-Federalists
like “Agrippa” were concerned that the Federal government had
greater powers than those given to either the state governments or to the
Continental Congress. Furthermore,
there were not sufficient checks on this power. It was not clear how the powers of the State and Federal
governments were to balance.
Another Anti-Federalist, Massachusettensis, expressed the balance of
power concern when he said the Constitution “marks no distinction between
separate state matters, and what would of right come under the controul of the
powers ordained in a union of states.”[114] Federalists, in refusing to specially
delineate the respective powers of the state and federal governments, had made
it possible for the Federal government to assume more power than it needed to
deal commercial problems. It was
“clear” to Anti-Federalists “that Congress [had] the right to
make general laws providing for all acts, records, proceedings, and the effect
thereof, in what are now called the states.”[115] The powers granted to the Federal
government were so extensive that Anti-Federalists questioned whether it was
still “possible [for] any state act [to] exist, or [for] any publick
business [to] be done, without the direction and sanction of Congress, or by
virtue of some subordinate authority?”[116] Congress, it appeared to
Anti-Federalists would have difficulty acting of its own volition, or in response
to the needs of the people without consulting Congress because of the extensive
powers granted to it. There simply
did not appear to be “any independent state authority recognized in the
plan,” and if there was not, “how [could] there be a union of states?”[117] Anti-Federalists did not think the
Constitution recognized any state authority, and therefore a
“union” was not being created.
Not even in
the process of ratification could any concern for state authority or semblance
of a union be found. If the
Constitution was truly creating a Federation of states, why could not
“the states, in their present capacity, . . . ratify the original?”[118] The answer was, Anti-Federalists
feared, that the Constitution was not establishing a Federation. “No state act can exist
independent of the supreme authority of the state,” said
Massachusettensis, and therefore the new government was not a Federation of the
states.[119] One could not find the “regular
exercise and legal sanction of state power” anywhere in the Constitution. The states had been given the ability
to amend it, but this could only “if Congress see[s] fit.” Even then it would take “three
fourths of the legislatures of the several states . . . [to] ratify
amendments.”[120] In truth, there was no State Authority
recognized in the plan. Since
“there is no [state] authority recognized either in the form of it, or in
the mode fixed upon for its ratification,” Massachutsettensis declared,
it must be a National government.[121] Patrick Henry, the most prominent
Anti-Federalist spokesman bolstered this declaration when he thundered in
Virginia convention in Richmond:
“states are the characteristics, and the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents of this
compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government of the people of
all the States.”[122]
The fact that state authority was not
recognized or protected in the plan is an indication that this was indeed a
national government. There was no
state authority contained in the plan, and therefore it could not create a
union of independent states. This was a dangerous proposition because state
authority simply was not recognized, and hence Anti-Federalists feared that
meant that Congress would have to be consulted in too many matters. The sudden inferiority of state
governments was troublesome for Anti-Federalists because it meant that people
were “property” subject to the control of the Federal
Congress. The Federal Congress
would abuse the state governments, and in the process demonstrate a
“wanton, unrighteous use of congressional power.”[123]
Anti-Federalists were deeply
afraid of ignoring state authority because it was integral to a representative
republic, and the new government, they believed, did not acknowledge state
authority in its structure. Such a
failure to properly acknowledge state authority was viewed as evidence that a
national government, removed from the people, was to be created. This was not republican, and it was
certainly not democratic. The
Anti-Federalist concern with keeping the loci of power as close to the people
as possible is evidence of their democratic spirit. This, and not merely an old
allegiance to state rights, is why Anti-Federalists were so adamant that the
new government be federal and not national. The Anti-Federalist concern for infringement on state
authority was centered around a concern for the representation of people in
government.
The Anti-Federalists concern over
representation in the new constitution pervaded their evaluation of every
branch. Once again they were
afraid that the aristocracy could dominate government. Representation was the core of any
democracy, and, true to form, the Anti-Federalists were critical of the extent
of representation in the new government.
The Federalists had worked hard to create a republican government that
could accurately represent the will of the people. They had fought long and hard over the Virginia plan before
making the ‘great compromise’ which balanced sectional interests
and differences between large and small states. Yet despite all the time Federalists spent debating the
orientation of each branch, particularly the two houses of Congress,
Anti-Federalists were still unsatisfied with it. Anti-Federalists concerns began right from the top with
president, which some considered a virtual monarch.[124] The senate, they declared, was clearly
a vestibule for the aristocracy.
And in the House of Representatives, there was only the “shadow of
representation.”[125] The Anti-Federalists spent most of
their time talking about the House of Representatives, but they had important
criticisms of the executive branch, the senate, and the judiciary as well.
The Anti-Federalist concern with the
government itself started right from the top with role of the President. Not all Anti-Federalists addressed the
role of the President extensively, but many thought he had been given too much
power. He was a virtual elected
king, claimed Philadelphiensis in his letter to the Independent Gazetteer on February 21, 1788, in whom
“power dangerous to a free people [was] vested.”[126] Anti-Federalists were generally in
favor of a plural executive so that the president would not resemble a
monarch. Furthermore, they did not
believe the President should have a veto power over the legislative
branch. This was most certainly
undemocratic, and resembled the power of the monarch to impose his will on his
subjects. When the will of people
was expressed in the legislature, said Anti-Federalists, it should not be
subject to the approval of the President.
That gave the executive too much power.[127]
Anti-Federalists concern with
presidential power is also expressed in their calls for a council to assist the
President. George Mason, one of
the most widely recognized Anti-Federalists, second only to Patrick Henry, was
the most forceful in lamenting the lack of a council that would advise and
check the President. “The
President of the United States has no constitutional council, a thing unknown
in any safe and regular government.”[128] Because of the failure to include a
council, said Mason, the President will “be unsupported by proper
information and advice; and will generally be directed by minions and
favorites.”[129] This was sure to be
unrepresentative. If the President
did not develop his own circle of favorites, he would likely “become a
tool to the Senate.”[130] Even if an official council was created
sometime after the government was implemented, Mason continued, it would
probably “grow out of the principal officers of the great departments”
of state, and that would be “the worst and most dangerous of all
ingredients for such a council in a free country” because council members
“may be induced to join in any dangerous or oppressive measures, to
shelter themselves, and prevent an inquiry into their own misconduct in
office.”[131] A council composed of departmental
official would naturally seek to protect its own function in government, and
would sometimes be inclined to offer inappropriate advice to the President. Generally, Anti-Federalists like Mason
thought that if the council came from within government, it would naturally be
ineffective in checking the powers of the president. To effectively limit the role of president so that he was
responsive to the people, Anti-Federalists declared, either a plural executive
or a presidential council was necessary.[132]
The Anti-Federalist concerns about the
Senate were similar. It too was
believed to have too much power.
While Anti-Federalists liked the federal feature of the Senate in that
it was a body elected by the states, they were dismayed that the elected terms
were so long, and that such extensive powers, especially in foreign trade
matters, were granted to it. This power was further compounded by the belief
that it was truly an aristocratic arm of government, not designed to represent
the whole people of a state, but rather the aristocratic conception of what was
good for those people. The power
of the Senate caused Anti-Federalists to fear that it was a vestibule for the
aristocracy. George Clinton of New
York was left asking “What is there left to resist and repel this host of
influence and power?”[133] The answer for Anti-Federalists
was: nothing.
George Mason was particularly critical of
the role of the Senate. The Senate had the power of “altering
money-bills,” “originating appropriations of money, and the
salaries of the officers of their appointment, in conjunction with the
President,” appointing ambassadors “and all their public
officers,” “making treaties,” and “trying all
impeachments.”[134] This was simply to much power. Furthermore, Mason asserted, when these
powers were combined with “their influence upon and connection with, the
supreme executive, . . . their duration in office, . . . their being a constant
existing body, almost continually sitting,” and their status as
“one complete branch of the legislature,” the “balance in the
government” would be destroyed.[135] The power of the Senate, said Mason,
would enable Senators “to accomplish what usurpations they please, upon
the rights and liberties of the people.”[136] The power and aristocratic nature of
the Senate, Anti-Federalists believed, destroyed any hope that a proper balance
of government could be achieved.
The Federalists framers conceived of the Senate as a gatekeeper, a
source of protection against corrupt interest in government, but
Anti-Federalists believed that in reality it was an aristocratic body which had
the potential to encroach on the powers of the people.[137]
The Federalist framers had devised the
judiciary to serve as a check on the usurpation of power by executive and
legislative branches, but Anti-Federalists detected excessive power and
influence in it as well. The
judiciary had the power to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and to
resolve legislative questions. The
judiciary, said “Brutus,” ”are authorized to determine all
questions that may arise upon the meaning of the constitution in law,”
and “to give the constitution a legal construction, or to explain it
according to the rules laid down
for construing a law. These rules
give a certain degree of latitude of explanation.”[138] Such latitude enabled them to explain,
not just what the Constitution said, but also to articulate “the
reasoning spirit of [the Constitution], without being confined to the words or
letter.”[139] This authority, “Brutus”
said, would enable them “to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent
and imperceptible manner . . . an
entire subversion of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the
individual states. Every
adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the
nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the
state jurisdiction.” [140] The authority of the state government
would “be restricted” in the same “proportion” as the
Federal government was to “enlarge the exercise of their powers.”[141] With the power of interpretation, the
judiciary could “mould the government, into almost any shape they
please.”[142] This was a dangerous degree of
power. And this danger was
compounded by the fact that only aristocratic sorts had the necessary education
to provide the sort of judicial expertise that was needed to fully fulfill the
role of the judiciary. The
judiciary was the branch of government that ought to protect the rights of the
people and the sanctity of the state government, but with its extensive powers
it too was subject to aristocratic dominance and corruption. In neither the executive branch, the
Senate, nor the judicial branch did Anti-Federalist find any protection of
state authority, individual rights, or representation.
The one arm of government which did
appear to be somewhat democratic in nature was the House of Representatives,
but even in this branch, Anti-Federalist asserted, the “representation
was too scanty.” Richard Henry
Lee, making one of the most blatantly democratic comments in the entire
Constitutional debate, asserted that “the only check to be found in favor
of the democratic principle in this system is, the house of representatives;
which I believe may justly be called a mere shred or rag of
representation.”[143] While Lee and the Anti-Federalists
believed the House of Representatives was democratic in principle, the small
number of representatives and the relative “disparity of power” in
comparison to the Senate rendered it “of little effect to promote good,
or restrain bad government.”[144] Anti-Federalists were particularly
concerned about the insufficient number of Congressmen to be elected to the
House of Representatives.
After listing the number of delegates granted to each state: three for New Hampshire, eight for
Massachusetts, one for Rhode Island, five for Connecticut, six for New York,
four for New Jersey, eight for Pennsylvania, one for Delaware, six for Maryland,
five for North Carolina, three for Georgia, five for South Carolina, and ten
for Virginia, a “The Federal Republican” declares: “the representation is too
scanty. There is a certain corrective
balance to be preserved, not only between different houses, but also between
the members that compose the same house.”[145]
This corrective balance required more representation than the one Congressman
for every thirty thousand constituents allocated by the Constitution. The necessary “spirit of [a] more
accurate discussion” could not be kept alive “with such a paucity
of members.”[146] Anti-Federalists feared this lack of
democratic discussion because it would prevent important concerns within a
congressional district from being heard. To Anti-Federalists this bordered
“on injustice” because “among thirty thousand people there
must of necessity be a variety of classes, each having distinct and separate
concerns, to which some respect would most certainly be due.”[147] While it “would indeed be
frivolous to attend to the most minute circumstantial divisions of interest,”
there had to be some larger and important concerns that could not be met by a
single representative.[148] The “happiness” of people
would be “intimately connected” to these concerns, and thus, within
the common understanding of the Declaration of Independence which provided the
right to “happiness,” these concerns “should by all means be
regarded.”[149]
“The Federal Republican,”
along with most Anti-Federalists, believed the number of congressmen in the
house of representatives to be too few to properly balance regional, class, and
occupational interests. George
Mason, one of the dissenting Framers from the “northern neck” of
Virginia and the first Governor of Virginia after independence, believed that
“in the House of Representatives there is not the substance, but the
shadow only of representation; which can never produce proper information in
the legislature, or inspire confidence in the people.--The [decisions] will,
therefore, be generally made by men little concerned in, and unacquainted with
their effects and consequences.”[150] The bottom line for Anti-Federalists in
the debate over representation is expressed by Richard Henry Lee when, in his
October sixteenth letter to Edmund Randolph on the sixteenth of October, he
declares that monarchy will likely be created. Mr. Lee denounces the Senate and the Executive as much too
powerful. Both Randolph and Lee
agree that “either a monarchy or aristocracy will be generated” by
the Constitution which contains principles that are “highly and
dangerously oligarchic.”[151] There simply were not enough
representatives allocated for the House to properly reflect the orientation of
the represented society.
Congressman would represent excessively large groups of people, and they
could not possibly represent all their interests.
While Anti-Federalists recognized that
not every minute faction of the population could be directly represented, they
did strive for a more just balance.
Although they wanted “the Aristocracy,” as Arthur Lee wrote
to Edward Rutledge, to “have its due weight yet,” they would
“never agree that “they shall trample upon the People.” [152] Without a larger scale of
representation, they were “persuaded that a due balance” was needed
to “ guard” against “the Aristocracy itself,” or
“otherwise it [would] soon run riot & lose itself in a despotism, as
in Denmark & Sweden.”[153] More representation was the way to
provide the proper balance. James
Madison, a Federalist who had argued for more representation during the
constitutional convention at Philadelphia, agreed with the Anti-Federalists
that more representation was necessary to create an appropriate balance of
interests in the House of Representatives. Madison disagreed with him in typical Federalist fashion,
however, on the purpose of this balance.
For Madison, the balance of interests was designed to defend the system
against majoritarian impulses in hopes of creating a more deliberative and
reflective legislative process.[154] Pitting groups with clear differences
against each other in Congress would, he believed, accomplish this. The “Federal Republican”
was also hopeful that a properly balanced legislature would lead to a more
accurate discussion, but he was less afraid of the majoritarian impulse. The “Federal Republican”
wanted more people in government because it would give them a voice like the
aristocracy already had, not because it might ultimately produce the
“disinterested” rule of law that Madison and the Federalists were
after. Such
disinterestedness would prevent people from seeing their “happiness”
procured by intelligent government action. Interest groups within congressional districts would be
denied their due influence in government.
Anti-Federalists generally supported a reasonable degree of interest
group politics because people deserved a voice in government.[155] This was democratic politics.
Anti-Federalists took these democratic
ideas of interest group politics far beyond what Madison and the Federalist
could stomach when they argued for the inclusion of the yeomanry in
government. When Madison had
argued for more representation, he was mostly talking about increasing the
numbers of representatives, not increasing the diversity of groups to be
represented. Anti-Federalists were
for involving different groups of people in Congress. When some Anti-Federalists stretched the idea of interests
in government to include Yeomen, or farmers, Madison and the Federalists were
certainly disgusted.
Anti-Federalists did so because they believed free-holding farmers could
bring some useful tools into government.
Melancton Smith of New York espoused this Anti-Federalist idea when he
asserted that “by increasing the number of representatives, we open the
door for the admission of the substantial yeomanry of your country; who, being
possessed of the habits of economy, will be cautious of imprudent expenditures,
by which means a greater saving will be made of public money than is sufficient
to support them.”[156] In other words, the cost of increasing
the size of the legislature, which discouraged some from advocated for a large
legislature, would be paid for by the increased frugality that the yeomanry
would bring to it.
Yes, increasing the size of the legislature would be costly, but the
frugality that farmers would bring to the legislature would be more than pay
for it according to Anti-Federalists. The idea of electing free-holding farmers to congress
was, of course, very democratic.
It rankled with Federalists, and reveals the democratic tenor of the
Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists
wanted more representatives, not to prevent the dominance of any particular
faction, but to defend, facilitate, and perpetuate the right of people to
participate in government.
Melancton Smith continues by saying that
the general government will take some responsibility from the state
legislatures “as to render it less necessary to have them so numerous as
they now are.”[157] At first glance this appear to
partially undermine the Anti-Federalist argument for state rights, and with it
the argument made above (in the previous section) that their cry for state
rights was democratic. But on a
more careful review the idea is very democratic. Anti-Federalists wanted strong state authority in order to
give people good representation in government, but if they were directly represented
in this national government, which Anti-Federalists thought was inherently
superior and would come to dominate representative politics, they would be
represented to the highest offices in the land. Direct representation in Congress was purely democratic, and
it would be efficient not to duplicate efforts by having excessively large
state governments as well.
Anti-Federalists wanted as little government as possible, but they also
wanted to make sure there was plenty of representation in it. As long as the representation was clear
and protected, the level and location of it was not so important. In any case, the Anti-Federalist idea
of increasing representation to get yeomen involved in politics is indicative
of the depth of their concern for the democratic principle of
representation. Anti-Federalists
wanted to ensure that all, or nearly all, voices were heard, regardless of
whether the outcome produced the “disinterested” rule of law that
Federalists like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and James Wilson were
seeking.
Although Anti-Federalists were primarily
concerned about the lack of representation in the House of Representatives,
they also had some concerns about the powers granted to congress. These concerns were centered around two
basic powers: taxation, and the control over elections. Taxation was it was feared would enable
government to dominate people, and control over elections would ultimately
enable corrupt representatives in future governments to solidify their place in
government perpetually.
In a letter composed “To the
FREEMEN of Virginia and published in the October 17th edition of the Virginia
Independent Chronicle,
Cato Uticensis argues against granting congress the power of excise taxes. He simply did not believe it was
necessary. It could not, he
argued, “arise from the desire of furnishing Congress with a sufficient
revenue,” because this could have been done with an “impost”
that fell “sufficiently uniform on everyone” whenever ever revenues
were needed.[158] If the impost failed to provide
sufficient revenue, the “deficiency [could] be made up by requisitions to
the states.” There was no
need, said “Cato Uticensis,” to allow Congress to tax directly when
an impost could have done the job, and the states could have made up the
difference if it did not.
“Cato Uticensis” concluded that the power of taxation must
have been included to make governing the large republic easier. To ensure a harmonious republic, Cato
Uticensis concluded, the aristocratic framers thought it was necessary to
“bit our mouths with massive curbs, to break us, bridled with excise
laws, and managed by excisemen, into an uniform, sober peace, and thus,
gradually, tame the troublesome mettle of the freeman.”[159]
The
power of taxation was especially vexing to Anti-Federalists because it enabled
the government to reach directly into the lives of the people. A government with the ability to easily
raise money, was a government with too much power. Within this argument, arises again the notion of state rights. People believed that the states could
provide solutions to revenue problems when they arose. “The power to borrow money is
general and unlimited,” said “Brutus”, and this seemed
unreasonable to Anti-Federalists.[160] When combined with additional congressional
power of borrowing, the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and
excises meant, according to “Brutus,” that Congress “may
create a national debt, so large, as to exceed the ability of the country ever
to sink.”[161] The power of taxation was a significant
power that Anti-Federalists found particularly irksome.
Concerns over economic powers granted to
Congress did not stop with revenue-raising for some Anti-Federalists. “Agrippa,” for example, was
afraid that congress had too much power over trade. Although the Constitution had been drafted to deal with
problems of commerce and trade, power in these areas needed to be regulated, or
otherwise they could be used in negligent fashion. “Agrippa” celebrated the “spirit of
industry and exertion, that is friendly to commerce,” but feared that
“unlimited power over trade . . . is exceedingly apt to injure it.”[162] Federal power over commerce, he argued,
is likely to produce “exclusive companies” which are “pretty
much like an aristocracy in government, and produces nearly as bad
effects.” The problem with
federal power of trade was that aristocrats in Congress would grant special
privileges to certain companies who, because of “the greatness of their
capital, [had] an undue influence on the government.” Anti-Federalists thought that such big
government interests ought to be guarded against as much as possible so that
they did not dominate government. This was what “Brutus” was afraid
of when he said the small number of representatives in of the House would allow
for “bribery and corruption[163] “It is the object of
government,” said "Agrippa” “to protect” all
interests, and not to allow some to corrupt government.” The overriding Anti-Federalists concern
was that if “exclusive privileges are given to any class, it will operate
to the weakening of some other class connected with them.” Because of the potential for exclusive
companies to weaken the representation of other classes, and to make sure “the
advantages of every class will be
nearly equal,” Anti-Federalists thought it best to allow “commerce
. . . to take its own course.[164] The potential for the infusion
‘exclusive’ company interests into government made it even more
possible that the aristocracy could dominate government, and subsequently the
middling classes would be weakened because commerce laws would be designed to
help the rich and not the poor.
The
potential for corruption that Anti-Federalists saw in Congress regarding
taxation and commercial policy also applied to the other major congressional
power they found fault with: the power over elections. The Anti-Federalist fear of the
aristocratic corruption stretched beyond fears that they would grant privileges
to “exclusive” companies to the idea that aristocrats would use the
power of elections to deliberately wheedle the people out of their
liberties. The new system of
government, which already favored the aristocracy, gave congress the power to
change the time and place of elections.
The fourth section of the first article of the constitution declares
“that the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and
representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature
thereof: But the Congress may at
any time by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of
choosing senators.”[165] Many Anti-Federalists rejected outright
all attempts to explain the meaning of this clause. “The Republican Federalist” was one such
Anti-Federalist. He declared that
“great ingenuity has been manifested in attempts to explain away the
meaning and tendency of this fatal clause--a clause destructive of the small
but best security which the people by the new system will have for preserving
their liberties,” but that none
them were valid.[166] Federalists argued that the clause was
designed to prevent individual states from denying the people their right to
representation in the national government. States might do this they suggested if they became
frustrated when working with Congress.
“The Republican Federalist” thought that Federalist fear of
state governments controlling elections was “an imaginary danger”
used to “introduce a remedy which must inevitably deprive them of those
rights.”[167] Since state legislators do not
“have any separate interest from the people,” were also subject to
federal laws, elected for less time, and might lose reelections if they defied
the will of the people, it was not very plausible that they would risk
offending the people by changing the time and place of elections.[168] Therefore the Federalist stance was
nothing but, as “Ezra” declared, an “appearance of great
tenderness for the rights of the people” because in reality there was
nothing to their fears of corruption at the state level.[169]
The dependence of the state legislators,
Anti-Federalists argued, makes it extremely difficult for state legislatures to
tamper with the time and place of elections. Allowing the superior federal congress to regulate
elections, however, would be without a check because congressmen would less
worried about state authority than state legislators would be about Federal
authorities. Anti-Federalists
thought that if aristocratic influences in government became corrupt, Congress
may try to coordinate in such a fashion as to easily procure their
reelection. As “Ezra”
asserts in a essay to the Massachusetts Gazette on the 25th of January,
“suppose for instance, the place chosen for election, should be in the
extreme eastern, or western borders of this Commonwealth--what will be the
consequence? Why but a very small
part of the people indeed will be represented.”[170] Because they felt the risk for
corruption was higher at the federal level, Anti-Federalists were also
reluctant to give the federal government power over the time and place of
elections. James Winthrop, an
Anti-Federalist, summarized the Anti-Federalist objections to congressional
power over elections when he declared that “by altering the time they may
continue a representative during his whole life; by altering the manner, they
may fill up the vacancies by their own votes without consent of the people; and
by altering the place, all the elections may be made at the seat of the federal
government.” Because of
their distrust of the aristocracy, Anti-Federalists objected to congressional
control over elections. This fear
represents class division, and, once again, their concern that all people would
be represented fairly and equally.
The fear
that an aristocratic congress may corruptly control elections is part of the
larger Anti-Federalist concern with representation. They feared it would result in unequal representation in
government, and hence it is part of their over-arching concern with democratic
principles. Representation is a
core democratic principle, and the Anti-Federalist over the function of the
President, the Senate, the judiciary, and the house of representatives is an
indication of the depth of their concern.
Anti-Federalists may have thought they were espousing republican
principles, but the depth of their concern over representation in government
indicates that it was more democratic than republican. They did not merely want
representation. Because they were
so afraid that aristocrats would dominate the new government and become corrupt
because of the extensive powers invested in them, Anti-Federalists advocated
for including the yeomanry in government.
Direct participation of diverse groups of people was the one way in
which adequate representation could be guaranteed. It was the one way rights could be protected. Rights were not protected by the
executive, the senate, he judiciary, or the house. But most Anti-Federalists would have settled for something
less than direct representation.
They would not have been so critical of the Constitution if had included
a bill of rights. A bill of rights
would have ensured that individual liberties were protected, and this likely
would have been enough to procure the support of most Anti-Federalists. But as the Constitution appeared during
ratification, it did not contain a bill of rights, and this only enhanced the
intensity of Anti-Federalist attacks on the Constitution.[171]
In lieu of the Anti-Federalists concerns
over the lack of adequate representation in the new government, the omission of
a bill of rights became very important.
Underlying the concern over representation and all the rest of the
Anti-Federalists criticisms of the Constitution, was the belief in the
inalienable rights of mankind.
These rights were of primary concern to Anti-Federalists, and thus their
strongest objection to the proposed constitution was its lack of a bill of
rights. Patrick Henry went as far
as to assert that the lack of a bill of rights indicated that new revolution
was being conducted. Henry declared
that “the rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all
. . . immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and
privileges,” were “rendered insecure, if not lost, by” the
creation of a new government.[172] Because some Anti-Federalists believed
that Federalists were trying to effect another revolution which retracted the
liberties that people had fought for in the Revolutionary War, they were
particularly strident in their criticizing Federalists for omitting a bill of
rights. In the waning days of the
constitutional Convention itself, George Mason declared “that he would
sooner chop of his right hand than put it to the Constitution” without it
at the very least including a Bill of rights.[173] The Anti-Federalist criticism was so
strong, Federalists, under the leadership of James Madison, ultimately promised
to draft a bill of rights immediately upon ratification.[174] While the Constitution had many
problems in the eyes of the Anti-Federalists, a bill of rights was an absolute
necessity.
Bills of rights in the
Anglo tradition, especially under the shadow of the Magna Carta, were believed
to be the best guardian against the abuse of despotic government. They were symbols of a proper
relationship between people and their governments. Under the influence of bills of rights, governments knew the
extent of their powers, and did not bother the people with new experiments.[175] They were, said Thomas Jefferson,
“what the people are entitled to against every government on earth,
general or particular, & what no just government should refuse or resist on
interference.”[176] They soothed the relationship between
the people and their governments.
People, said a “Federal Farmer,” “like to be express
and explicit about their essential rights, and” do not like “to be
forced to claim them on [the] precarious and unascertained nature of inferences
and general principles” because then they would have to argue
unnecessarily for them.[177] Without a Bill of rights, rebellion was
the only recourse the citizens had against improper behavior by their
government.[178] Bills of rights could be composed in a
number of different ways.
Generally, they could be composed of a set of directions or commands to
their government, or they could a list of rights directed toward the people,
reminding them of the liberties and rights that were theirs to preserve.[179]
While Anti-Federalists
certainly wanted to give directions to government regarding the extent of its
power, it was the latter form of a bill of rights that they believed was needed
most. Within the structure of the
Constitution, limitations were indeed needed, Anti-Federalists said, but it was
absolutely imperative that it at least include an attached declaration of
rights. Anti-Federalist believed
that the Constitution should include a Bill of rights reserving the right to a
trial by jury in civil and criminal cases, the right to council, the right to
be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, the benefit of the writ of
habeas corpus, the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech and assembly,
the right to property, the right to protection against a standing army and
quartering soldiers, free and frequent elections, and any other right
demonstrating the freedom and liberty of the people.[180] Anti-Federalists were confident that it
would not be difficult to enumerate them, and that doing so that would preserve
the “political happiness” of the people. The government was vested with so much power that it seemed
a rather necessary and simple matter to reserve rights. “Brutus”, probably Robert
Yates of New York, when considering the power of the government, asked:
“ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite
authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of ought.”[181] “Brutus” answered his own
question in the affirmative, and then asserted that people arguing against a
bill of rights were “willingly endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you
into a state of vassalage.”[182] The failure of framers to include a
bill of rights, especially considering that it would have been so simple to do
so, indicated for some Anti-Federalists like “Brutus” that the
government was trying to in effect enslave its people. A declaration of rights, said Anti-Federalists
like “Vox Populi,” was “necessary as a barricado to prevent
[our government] from infringing on certain rights which the people did not
mean should be at the disposal of our legislature.”[183] A Bill of rights would protect a
enslavement and usurpation of power; it would defend the people against
possible corruption in government.
Anti-Federalists simply could not understand why such simple declaration
could not have been included. By not including a bill of rights, the
framers and the rest of the Federalists wanted people to believe the reverse of
what was popularly believed to be the relationship between the people and
government.
Federalists argued that a declaration of
rights was not necessary because the rights of the people were already
articulated in the state governments, and that the Federal government did not
have enough power granted to it to warrant a Bill of rights. James Wilson, in his famous speech on
the lawn in front of the State House yard of Pennsylvania, popularized this
Federal argument. Wilson declared
“that in the former case [the state governments] everything which is not
reserved is given, but in the latter [the Federal government] the reverse of
the proposition prevails, and everything which is not given, is
reserved.”[184] Wilson argued that it was necessary to
reserve rights in a state government because everything not reserved was
given. This was the case because
the state governments were vested with authority to address a wide array of
specific and important tasks. The
Federal government every power not expressly given was reserved. It was not needed to perform very many
tasks, and therefore ought to be able to assume as much power as the state
governments. The state governments
were granted too many powers to listed, and therefore a Bill of rights
enumerating the powers was typically attached to them. With the Federal government, it was far
more efficient to list the powers granted because they were far less numerous
than the one’s reserved. The
premise of this argument is entirely democratic: that is that the people
expressly give power to government, and that which they do not give, cannot be
taken. The Anti-Federalists,
however, believed the extent of power granted to congress necessitated a bill
of rights. They were very much
concerned with guarding against a usurpation of power. If there were not definite limits
drawn, they argued, government would inevitably exert more influence over the
people than they ought to.[185] While Federalists like Wilson believed
the lack of a bill of rights to be evidence of the limited power of the federal
government, Anti-Federalists were skeptical because of the extensive powers the
Constitution granted to the various branches of government, and because it was
a compact of the people.
Anti-Federalists remained unconvinced
that the powers not granted to Congress were reserved, and thus they were
afraid of usurpation of rights.
Nowhere in the Constitution were the rights of the people enumerated and
defended. The Constitution began
in the name of the people, but was, in the words of “Agrippa,” “a declaration of
the relation which the different parts of government [had to] each
other,” and did “not in any degree imply security to the rights of
individuals. . . . In all doubtful
cases the decision [regarding power] is in favour of the government.”[186] Since the Constitution began in the
name of the people, favoring the government with power while failing to
enumerate the rights of the people was simply unacceptable. The fact that the Constitution was
crafted in the name of people made a bill of rights imperative for
Anti-Federalists. If the matter
was strictly between different levels of government, Wilson’s notion of
regarding the reservations of powers would have been justifiable and tolerable. Since the relationship to the people
was a direct one, and hence the state governments could be subjugated to the
will of the Federal government, it was logical that a bill of rights should be
included.
Many
Federalists, however, simply did not see a bill of rights as necessary and did
not want it to slow the ratification process. Most Federalists like Alexander White believed that
the people knew their rights, and that it was not likely that they would be
given up easily. In a letter
published in the Winchester Virginia Gazette, Alexander White asserts “A
Bill of rights is only necessary, where the rights of different men or orders
of men are uncertain, and is rather calculated to inform them to restrain. Paper chains are too feeble to bind the
hands of tyranny or ambition.” White saw the virtue of a bill of rights,
but was confident that the people knew and would subsequently control their own
destiny in a republic. According
to Federalists, proceeding to enumerate these rights would lessen the status
and validity of those rights not included. People would have trouble defending rights not specifically
included against future despotic governments; rights not included would seem
less sacred. Therefore it was
safer to simply presume that people had all the rights and powers not specially
granted to government. Including
“a bill of rights, said Federalists like James Iredell, “is not
only unnecessary, but would be absurd and dangerous.”[187] But Anti-Federalists like the
“Federal Farmer” noted that this argument was contradicted by the
Constitution itself. Some powers
were indeed expressly guarded against in the Constitution. For example, article 1, section 9 said
“’No title of nobility shall be granted by congress.’”[188] Did this mean, questioned
Anti-Federalists like a “Federal Farmer,” that some powers not
expressly given were somehow implied?
The fact some powers that were not given were nevertheless specifically
guarded against indicated that it would be wise to reserve at least some
essential rights. [189] There was a hint of implied powers in
the Constitution, said Anti-Federalists, and therefore it would wise to include
a bill of rights even if the people did know them.
The Anti-Federalists,
however, were less willing than Federalists to even risk a possible
infringement on the rights of the people.
They agreed that people knew their rights, but they believed it would be
extremely difficult to take away power from government once it was determined
that it had violated the rights of the people. There was no need to wait for this. The people had rights, and the
Constitution ought to declare them so that the risk of a corrupt government
could be diminished. The
difficulty of retaking already granted powers is articulated in an address by
“A Plebian.” He
advocates changes prior to ratification because his proposals limit the power
of government. It would not make
sense to delegate the authority and then attempt to retake it once it is
abused. It is not “probable,”
“A Plebian” said, “that those who enjoy these powers will be
so likely to surrender them after they have them in possession. . . . Common
sense says--they will not.[190] It was important to “A
Plebian” and other Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry to attach a bill
of rights in the form of amendments prior to ratification. That would be safe, proper, and
democratic thing to do. Allowing
the people to amend the Constitution prior to ratification was according to
Henry “democratic.” [191] Including a bill of rights prior to
ratification was democratic in two ways: it would allow the people to participate
more directly in the crafting of the Constitution, and it would (as would still
be the case whenever it happened) preserve rights that had an inherent
democratic tenor. The
Anti-Federalist concern with a bill of rights demonstrates the depth of their
concern for justice and liberty.
Some Anti-Federalists demonstrated the
depth of their for justice and liberty by attacking, not just the omission of a
Bill of rights, but also the veiled references to slavery in the
Constitution. These attacks reveal
how broadly Anti-Federalists applied the concept of equality, and highlight the
failure of the Constitution to establish the equality of all people. While it
would take centuries to truly do so, some Anti-Federalists like “A
Countryman” were already applying a literal interpretation of
equality. The fact that the
Constitution allowed the slave trade to continue for even a short time was an
indication to “A Countryman from Duchess County” that the framers
were “enemies to the Rights of Mankind,” and that the Constitution
had been “framed to deprive Millions of the human species of their
natural Rights .”[192] The Constitution, in allowing the slave
trade to continue, was infringing on inalienable human rights. The Anti-Federalists were applying
enlightenment ideas of rights and equality to even the most lowly (within the
social constructs of the time) people.
This was equality as Federalists were not willing to apply it. The Federalist commitment to the
inalienable rights articulated in enlightenment thought was simply not as deep
as it was for Anti-Federalists.
Anti-Federalists like “A Countryman From Duchess County,”
unlike Federalists, could clearly see that the slave “trade, if ever
permitted, [would] entail eternal Infamy on the United States, and [of] all
that they have ever said or done in Defence of Freedom.--Will it not be said,
that the greatest Sticklers for Liberty, are its worst Enemies?”[193] Anti-Federalists clearly believed that
would indeed be said. The
Constitution, as framed, was not as dedicated to principles of liberty and
justice as it ought to be. It is
rather ironic, as another “Countryman,” believed to be Dewitt
Clinton of New York, articulated, that “we are told by this new
constitution, that one of its great ends, is to establish justice” when
it allowed “one man [to] take another from his own country, and make a
slave of him.”[194] Anti-Federalists believed the slave
trade was abominable and unjust, and because the Constitution implicitly
endorsed it, it was unjust itself.
In criticizing the slave trade, the two “Countryman” writers
reveal a very literal and direct interpretation of equality. This application of principle of
equality reveals the depth of Anti-Federalists concerns with democratic
principles.
The Anti-Federalist concerns with the
lack of a bill of rights and with the slave trade clauses reveals the depth of
their concerns for democratic principles.
A bill of rights, they believed, was needed provided limits to a
government which had such extensive powers. The lack of representation, the aristocratic nature of the
judiciary, Senate, and executive branches all made future corruption of
possible. Consequently, a
bill of rights especially guarding against a usurpation of power by government
was necessary. When Anti-Federalists,
in calling for such a bill of rights, demonstrated how literally they applied
the enlightenment theory which necessitated one, they highlighted the depth of
their feeling for democratic principles.
A belief in a bill of rights and an interpretation of equality was
directly aligned with the democratic spirit that emerged in the nineteenth
century.
The democratic principles that
Anti-Federalist espoused in criticizing the Constitution reveal that they were
more in line with the democracy characterizing American government and society
in the early nineteenth century.
The Anti-Federalist concerns over the nature of the ratification
process, the subjugation of state authority to a national government, the lack
of representation, the aristocratic nature and power the senate, executive, and
judiciary, the obsession with a bill of rights, and the application of
enlightenment notions of equality to slaves all reveal the democratic tenor of
Anti-Federalists.[195] While Anti-Federalists occasionally
became fanatical in their criticisms of the Constitution, it is still
imperative to acknowledge their democratic concerns. By analyzing the degree to which Anti-Federalists were
democratic, the popular contemporary assumption that the founding fathers, the
framers, the Federalists were responsible for democracy in America becomes at
least partially untrue. Instead
the losers in the constitutional debate, the Anti-Federalists, ultimately had
their ideas triumph through the democratic discussion of the Constitution which
enabled government and society to become blatantly democratic shortly after the
ratification of the Constitution.
Anti-Federalists were far more comfortable than Federalists with the
democracy which emerged in the early nineteen hundreds because it prevented
government, temporarily at least, from becoming despotic. Anti-Federalists lost the battle, but,
because of the volume and breadth of their criticism, they eventually became
part of the side that won the war.
Anti-Federalist criticism of the
Constitution did indeed push the impetus of constitutional interpretation in a
more democratic direction than Federalists desired. Anti-Federalist opposition to the Constitution required the
utmost attention of Federalists, and significantly shaped subsequent
understanding of the Constitution.
The meaning of the Constitution was not fixed in the constitutional
convention, but rather it has developed ever since through democratic
discussion. By helping to initiate
and facilitate that discussion, Anti-Federalists contributed to the democratic
tradition. Furthermore, because
their criticisms had a democratic undercurrent, they were more closely aligned
with the democratic spirit of the nineteenth century. While they cannot claim to be directly responsible for
democracy, they can claim to have democratic interpretation possible. By forcing framers and the Federalists
to discuss the implications of the Constitution, and by refusing to be
satisfied when these explanations failed to be democratic enough,
Anti-Federalists reveal the depth of their concern for democratic
principles. The Anti-Federalist
relationship to democratic principles was far stronger than such a relationship
was for Federalists. Contrary to
contemporary understanding, Anti-Federalists were more democratic than
Federalists. And contrary to the
understanding of many historians, the Anti-Federalists significantly affected
the establishment of representative-republic by prompting and directing the
discussion of the Constitution.
Therefore as contemporary Americans
contemplate the Constitution and our origins, it is imperative that we reflect
in balanced fashion so that we can see how democratic discussion was
responsible for the eventual emergence of democracy. When we engage in such a balanced inquiry, we will better
understand the degree to which our origins were democratic. We will learn that
our understanding of the constitutional era should not be centered on the
Constitution. It should not be
centered on the framers, or the founding fathers. Instead we should be more democratic in our understanding of
the debate. We should look at all
the interests involved, and recognize that that American democracy was born in
a democratic discussion of the Constitution. When contemporary legal scholars examine the “Original
Meaning” of the Constitution, they should look at the entire ideological
debate as it developed through the revolutionary decades,[196]
reaching its peak in the constitutional debate, so that it becomes clear how
the Anti-Federalists pushed interpretation of these ideological principles in a
more democratic direction.
In short, we should employ a democratic methodology as we grapple with
and attempt to understand our democratic roots.
[1] Gordon S. Wood.
The Radicalism of The American Revolution. (New York: Random House Inc., 1993). See also, Jack N.
Rakove. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the
Constitution. (New York: Random House Inc.),
1997. Jackson Turner
Main. The Antifederalists: Critics Of The Constitution 1781-1788. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1961). George Brown Tindall and
David E. Shi. America: A
Narrative History
(New York: W.W. Norton, 1996),
vol. I. Bernard Bailyn. The
Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (New York: Random House, 1993 revision).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Main, The Antifederalists, p. 169.
[4] Ibid., pp. 119-186. See also Wood, Radicalism.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Wood, Radicalism, and Rakove, Original Meanings.
[7] Wood, Radicalism.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Rakove, Original Meanings.
[10] Bailyn, Ideological Origins.
[11] Rakove, Original Meanings.
[12] Main, Antifederalists.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Herbert Storing, ed., The Complete Anti-Federalist (Chicago, 1981), 7
vols. And Merrill Jensen, John Kaminski, and Gaspare Saladino, eds., The Documentary History of the
Ratification of the Constitution (Madison, Wis., 1976-), 10 vols.
[15] Main, Antifederalists. See
also Storing, Complete Anti-Fed.
[16] Celia Kenyon, “Men of Little Faith: The Anti-Federalists on the Nature of Representative Government,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 12 (1955), pp. 3-43.
[17] Main, Antifederalists.
[18] Wood, Radicalism, 229-369. See also, Edward Countryman, The American Revolution. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1985).
[19] Marvin Zetterbaum, Tocqueville and the Problem of
Democracy (Stanford, 1967), 59.
[20] Wood, Radicalism.
[21] Gary Wills, Inventing America: Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (Garden City, NY: DoubleDay & Company, Inc., 1978).
[22] Rakove, Original Meanings. And Wood, Radicalism.
[23] Countryman, American Revolution, p.
[24] Wood, Radicalism, pp. 229-369.
[25] T. H. Breen, Tobacco Culture: The Mentality of the Great Tidewater
Planters on the Eve of Revolution
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1985).
[26] Wood, Radicalism, pp. 229-369.
[27] Bernard Bailyn, The peopling of British North America :an introduction (New
York:
Vintage
Books, 1988).
[28] Wood, Radicalism, pp. 229-369
[29] Wood, Radicalism, 245.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid., 229-369.
[32]Charles S. Hyneman and
Donald S. Lutz, eds., American
Political Writing during the Founding Era, 1760-1805
(Indianapolis, 1983), Vol. I, pp. 700.
[33] Boyd et al., eds., Papers of Jefferson, vol. XII, p. 15., quoted in Wood, Radicalism, p. 240.
[34] Wood, Radicalism, pp. 229-369.
[35] Ibid., 234.
[36] Taylor et al., eds., Papers of John Adams, vol. I, pp. 42, 179, 167-168, 71, quoted in Wood, Radicalism, p. 237.
[37] David Freeman Hawke, Benjamin Rush: Revolutionary Gadfly (Indianapolis, 1971), 107.
[38] Drew McCoy, The Last of the Fathers, (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989).
[39] Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates of the State
Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Convention (Philadelphia, 1896), vol. III, pp. 536-537, quoted
in Wood, Radicalism, 234-235.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Wood, Radicalism, p. 294. See also Rakove,
Original Meanings.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Margherita Marchione et al., eds., Philip Mazzei:
Selected Writings and Correspondence
(Prato, Italy, 1983), 439. Benjamin Latrobe to Philip Mazzei, Dec. 19, 1806.
[44] Wood, Radicalism, p. 296.
[45] Ibid., pp. 271-305.
[46] Adams , ed., Works of John Adams, vol. IX, pp. 538-542, 543-544, quoted in Wood, Radicalism, 290. Adams to John Jebb, on September 10th
1785.
[47] Ibid. Adams to John Jebb on September 25th.
[48] Wood, Radicalism, pp. 227-305.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Bailyn, Peopling.
[51] Complete Anti-Fed., I. 3-14.
[52] Richard B. Bernstein, Are We To Be A Nation: The Making
of the Constitution
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1987), p. 183.
[53] Main, Antifederalists.
[54] Rakove, Original Meanings, pp. 163-202.
See also Bernstein, Nation,
pp. 199-242. Merrill Jensen, John
Kaminski, and Gaspare Saladino,
eds., The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution (Madison, Wis., 1976-),
10 vols.
[55] Complete Anti-Fed, VI, p. 45-48.
“A Citizen” responding to “Median” in the
November 24,
[56] Ibid., p. 46.
[57] Ibid.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Doc. Hist.,
IX, p. 850. “James Monroe:
Some Observations on the Constitution.”
[60] Rakove, Original Meanings, pp. 163-202
[61] Ibid.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Ibid., pp. 160-161.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Ibid., pp. 162.
[66] Ibid.
[67] Countryman, American Revolution. See
also Wood, Radicalism. Bernstein, Nation.
[68] Bernstein, Nation, pp. 92-97.
[69] Wood, Radicalism, p. 237.
[70] Doc. Hist., VIII, pp. 158-162.
[71] Rakove, Original Meanings, pp. 161-287.
[72] Doc. Hist., V, pp. 840-841. Letter to the Editor of the Massachusetts Gazette on
February 1, 1788.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Ibid.
[76] Complete Anti-Fed., VI, p. 139.
[77] Ibid.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Ibid.
[80] Ibid.
[81] Main, Antifederalists.
[82] Complete Anti-Fed. , Vl, p. 825.
“Essay by “Agrippa”.”
[83] Ibid.
[84] Ibid.
[85] Doc. Hist.,
V, p. 829. Editorial by Amator
Patriae Massachusetts Centennial
on January 19, 1788.
[86] Ibid.
[87] Doc. Hist.,
V, p. 744. Correspondence to the Massachusetts Gazette on January 18th.
[88] Doc. Hist., VIII, 56. Letter from
George Washington to Henry Knox on October 15, 1787.
[89] Doc. Hist., V, pp. 744-745.
Correspondence to the
Massachusetts Gazette on January 28th, 1788..
[90] Complete Anti-Fed, V, pp. 160-171. Essays by “Republicus.”
[91] Doc. Hist,,
V, p. 785. Editorial to the
Massachusetts Centennial by “Ezra.”
[92] Essay from the Yeomanry of
Massachusetts published in the Massachusetts Gazette on January 25th,
1788. Doc. Hist., V, 803.
[93] Ibid.
[94] Ibid.
[95] Ibid.
[96] Alpheus Thomas Mason,
The States Rights Debate (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice
Hall,
Inc., 1849), pp. 27-56.
[97] Doc. Hist., V, 823-825. Agrippa's essay printed in the Massachusetts Gazette on the 29th of January, 1788
[98] Max Farrand, ed., Records of the Federal Convention of
1787,
rev. ed. (New Haven, 1937 [reprinted 1966]), 4 vols.
[99] Main, Antitfederalists. See also See also Gordon S. Wood. The Creation Of The American Republic, 1776-1787. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company
Inc., 1969).
[100] J. R. Poole, ed., The American Constitution: For and Against: The Federalist and Anti-Federalist
Papers (New
York, NY: Hill and Wang, 1987), p.
203. Federalists 39.
[101] Ibid., pp. 197-203.
[102] Ibid.
[103] Ibid.
[104] Ibid.
[105] Jack N. Rakove.
Original Meanings.
[106]Mason, The State Rights Debate, pp. 114-115. Letter by Elbridge Gerry to the Massachusetts Legislature.
[107] Complete Anti-Fed., I, pp. 29-30. Essays by “A Farmer”
printed in the Maryland Gazette during
February, March, and April of 1788.
[108] Ibid.
[109] Pole, For and Against, 153.
Federalist 10 by Madison.
[110] Complete Anti-Fed, V, pp.183-191. Essays by “The Impartial Examiner.”
[111] Doc. Hist.,
V, p. 825. Essays of “Agrippa” printed in Massachusetts Gazette on January 29, 1788.
[112] Ibid.
[113] Ibid.
[114] Doc. Hist., V, p. 831. Essay by Massachusettensis printed in the Massachusetts Gazette on January, 29, 1788.
[115] Ibid.
[116] Ibid., p. 832.
[117] Ibid.
[118] Ibid. p. 833.
[119] Ibid.
[120] Ibid.
[121] Ibid.
[122] Pole, For and Against, p. 116. Patrick
Henry speaking to the Virginia Convention on July 4, 1788.
[123] Doc. Hist., V, pp. 832-833. Essay by Massachusettensis printed in the Massachusetts Gazette on January, 29, 1788.
[124] Complete Anti-Fed, V, pp. 191-194. Essays by “The Impartial Examiner.”
[125] Pole, For and Again, p. 127.
George Mason speaking to the Virginia Convention.
[126] Complete Anti-Fed, III, p. 107.
[127] Ibid., V, pp. 161-167. Essays by “Republicus.”
[128] Pole, For and Against, p. 127.
George Mason speaking to the Virginia Convention.
[129] Ibid.
[130] Ibid., pp. 126-127.
[131] Ibid.
[132] Ibid., pp. 125-128.
[133] Complete Anti-Fed, VI, p. 186.
Speech by George Clinton to the New York Convention.
[134] Pole, For and Against, pp. 126-127.
[135] Ibid.
[136]Ibid.
[137] Complete Anti-Fed, V, pp. 129-135. Essay by a “Georgian.”
[138] Pole, For and Against, p. 60.
Essays of “Brutus”.
[139] Ibid.
[140] Ibid.
[141] Ibid., p. 61. Essays of “Brutus”.
[142] Ibid., p. 63.
[143] Doc. Hist., V, p. 62. Letter from
Richard Henry Lee to Edmund Randolph on October 16, 1787.
[144] Ibid.
[145] Doc. Hist., V, pp. 835-836. A Review of the Constitution Proposed of the Late
Convention by “A Federal Republican” in the Pennsylvania Herald, October 27, 1787.
[146] Ibid.
[147] Ibid.
[148] Ibid.
[149] Ibid..
[150] Pole, For and Against, p. 12-128.
Speech by George Mason to the Virginia Convention.
[151] Doc. Hist., V, 62. Letter from Richard Henry Lee to Edmund Randolph on October
16, 1787.
[152]Doc. Hist., VIII, 131. Letter from Arthur Lee to Edmund
Rutledge on October 29th, 1787.
[153] Ibid.
[154] Rakove, Original Meaning, pp. 35-56, 203-287. See also Complete Anti-Fed., III, 71.
Complete Anti-Fed., I, pp.
7-14.
[155] Complete Anti-Fed, V, pp. 172-199. Essays by “The Impartial Examiner.”
[156] Complete Anti-Fed., VI, p. 156.
Melancton Smith speaking to Ratifying Convention of
the State of New York on June 21st, 1788.
[157] Ibid.
[158] Doc. Hist.,
vol. VIII, pp. 73-74. Essay by
Cato Uticensis printed in the October 17, 1787 of Virginia Independent
Chronicle.
[159]Ibid.
[160] Pole, For and Against, p. 48.
Essays of “Brutus”.
[161] Ibid.
[162] Doc. Hist., V, p. 798. “Agrippa” in a essay to
the Massachusetts Gazette on January 25th, 1788
[163] Pole, For and Against, p.
49. Letter written by
“Brutus” on Nov 29, 1787
[164] Ibid.
[165] Doc. Hist., V, p. 846. Essay of “The Republican Federalist” VI to the
Massachusetts Centennial on February 2nd, 1788.
[166] Ibid.
[167] Ibid.
[168] Ibid.
[169] Doc. Hist., V, p, 786.
“Ezra” to the Massachusetts Gazette on the 25th of January,
1788.
[170] Ibid.
[171] Mason, The State Rights Debate, p. 112-114. Luther Martin in a letter on March 21, 1788.
[172] Pole, For and Against, p. 117.
A speech by Patrick Henry to the Virginia convention on June 5, 1788.
[173] Farrand, Records, II, p. 479.
[174] Jack N. Rakove, Declaring Rights: A Brief History with Documents (Boston:
Bedford Books, 1998), p. 132.
[175] Ibid.
[176] Robert Rutland et al., eds., The Papers of James
Madison (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1977), X, pp. 336-337.
[177] Complete Anti-Fed., II, p. 324. Letter
XVI by a Federal Farmer written on January 20, 1788.
[178] Doc. Hist., V, pp. 824-825. “Agrippa”.
[179] Rakove, Declaring Rights, p. 132.
[180] Doc. Hist.,
I, pp. . “Amendments Proposed to Congress” by Richard
Henry Lee before the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification.
[181] Complete Anti-Fed., II, p. 377.
Essay II by “Brutus”.
[182] Ibid.
[183] Complete Anti-Fed., II, p. 48, Essay by Vox Populi.
[184] Doc. Hist., II, 166. James
Wilson’s Speech in the State House Yard on October 6th, 1787.
[185] Complete Anti-Fed., II, pp. 106-109. An essay by Cato Utenicis titled: “To the Citizens of
the State of New York.”
[186] Doc. Hist., II, 166.
“Agrippa’s” essay printed in the Massachusetts Gazette on
the 29th of January, 1788. Doc.
Hist., V, 823-825.
[187] Rakove, Declaring Rights, p. 146.
A speech by James Iredell quoted from Proceedings and Debates of the
Convention of North Carolina, July
29, 1788 (North Carolina: Edenton, Hodge & Wills, 1789).
[188] Complete Anti-Fed., II, pp. 323-330. Letter
XVI by a Federal Farmer written on January 20, 1788.
[189] Ibid.
[190] The Complete Anti-Fed., VI, 129.
[191] Pole, For and Against, p. 119. Patrick Henry speaking to the Virginia
convention on June 5th, 1788.
[192] Complete Anti-Federalist, VI, p. 51. The Letters of “A Countryman from Duchess County,” published in the New York Journal between November of 1787 and February of 1788.
[193] Ibid.
[194] Ibid., VI, 78-79. Essays of “A Countryman.”
[195] Complete Anti-Fed., I, pp. 3-27.
[196] Rakove, Original Meaning.