 1787
| October 1787
|  Oct 1, 1787: Letter from Richard Henry Lee to George Mason (Virginia)
| The Virginian Antifederalist Richard Henry Lee informs George Mason, the author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, that absence of a Bill of Rights in the proposed Constitution is troublesome and imprudent: "the most express declarations and reservations are necessary to protect the just rights and liberty of Mankind from the silent powerful and ever active conspiracy of those who govern."
Full Text of Document |
|
| Oct 5, 1787: Centinel I (Pennsylvania)
| The Antifederalist Centinel suggests that "all the blessings of liberty and the dearest privileges of freemen are now at stake and dependent on your present conduct." But since the plan is inspired by John Adams's political thought which presumes 1) a balancing of the orders of society and 2) that "the administrators of every government are actuated by views of private interest and ambition & [and] & jarring adverse interests." Furthermore, the plan encourages the exercise of extensive powers over an extensive territory which is a recipe not "for a regular balanced government & but & a permanent ARISTOCRACY."
Full Text of Document |
|
| Oct 8, 1787: Federal Farmer No. 1 (Virginia)
| The Antifederalist Federal Farmer says the proposed Constitution "appears to be a plan retaining some federal features, but to be the first important step, and to aim strongly, to one consolidated government of the United States." We ought not to hastily adopt this plan supported by "ambitious, impatient, or disorderly men." He shares a deep regret: "The non-attendance of eight or nine men, who were appointed members of the convention, I shall ever consider as a very unfortunate event to the United States."
Full Text of Document |
|
| Oct 9, 1787: Federal Farmer No. 2 (Virginia)
| The Antifederalist Federal Farmer focuses on three main objections in this essay. He claims that the proposed Constitution 1) fails the "full and equal representation" test 2) inadequately separates the powers of government and 3) has a strong tendency to consolidation.
Full Text of Document |
|
| Oct 10, 1787: Federal Farmer No. 3 (Virginia)
| The Antifederalist Federal Farmer continues his critique of the proposed Constitution: "I will examine first, the organization of the proposed government in order to judge, second, with propriety, what powers are improperly, at least prematurely lodged in it. I shall examine, third, the undefined powers, and fourth, those powers, the exercise of which is not secured on safe and proper ground."
Full Text of Document |
|
| Oct 12, 1787: Federal Farmer No. 4 (Virginia)
| The Antifederalist Federal Farmer, without mentioning James Wilson by name, criticizes the premise of the State House speech that a Bill of Rights is unnecessary and dangerous. But, he argues, aren't Article One Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution a partial Bill of Rights so why don't we drop them or go the whole distance on behalf of a Bill of Rights?
Full Text of Document |
|
| Oct 16, 1787: Richard Henry Lee to Edmund Randolph (New York)
| Antifederalist Richard Henry Lee, introducer of the Declaration of Independence, presumed author of the influential Federal Farmer essays and president of the Confederation Congress, suggested fourteen necessary and proper amendments to the proposed constitution, all designed "to protect the just rights and liberty of mankind from the silent powerful and ever active conspiracy of those who govern."
Full Text of Document |
|
| Oct 18, 1787: Brutus No. 1 (New York)
| The New York Antifederalist Brutus, anticipating both Federalist 1 and 10, argues that 1) "the most important question that was ever proposed to your decision, or to the decision of any people under heaven, is before you," 2) "in so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the control of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves and oppressing them." He recommends rejection of the proposed plan.
Full Text of Document |
|
| Oct 18, 1787: Elbridge Gerry's Objections (Massachusetts)
| The Antifederalist Elbridge Gerry submits to the Massachusetts Legislature his principal reasons for not signing the Constitution on 17 September 1787 "that there is no adequate provision for a representation of the people; that they have no security for the right of election; that some of the powers of the Legislature are ambiguous, and others indefinite and dangerous, that the Executive is blended with and will have an undue influence over the Legislature; that the judicial department will be oppressive; that treaties of the highest importance may be formed by the President with the advice of two thirds of a quorum of the Senate; and that the system is without the security of a bill of rights." He urges that the plan be amended before being adopted.
Full Text of Document |
|
| Oct 25, 1787: Cato No. 3 (New York)
| New York Antifederalist Cato takes up "this new form of national government," and compares it with "the experience and opinions of the most sensible and approved political authors, and to show you that its principles, and the exercise of them, will be dangerous to your liberty and happiness." In particular, he shows that the proposed Constitution deviates from the teaching of the great oracle Montesquieu on federalism.
Full Text of Document |
|
|
| November 1787
| Nov 1, 1787: Brutus No. 2 (New York)
| Antifederalist Brutus argued that the proposed plan of government failed to provide adequate protection to individual rights of conscience, the liberty of the press, the freedom of association and the right of the people to the expectation of no unreasonable searches and no cruel and unreasonable punishments. Without mentioning James Wilson by name, he criticizes the contract theory in the State House Speech that declares a bill of Rights to be superfluous & And in direct contrast to the teachings of Federalist 10 and 51, Brutus suggests that the great art "in forming a good constitution appears to be this: so to frame it as that those to whom the power is committed shall be subject to the same feelings, and aim at the same objects as the people do, who transfer to them their authority. There is no possible way to effect this but by an equal, full, and fair representation."
Full Text of Document |
|
| Nov 8, 1787: Centinel III (Pennsylvania)
| The Antifederalist Centinel, echoing the remarks of Federalist 1, reminds his readers that they are called upon to make a decision "which involves in it not only your fate, but that of your posterity for ages to come." Your determination will either ensure the possession of those blessings which render life desirable, or entail those evils which make existence a curse. That such are the consequences of a wise or improper organization of government, the history of mankind abundantly testifies." Unfortunately, however, the proponents "have hurried on its adoption with a precipitation that betrays their design." They are up to no good.
Full Text of Document |
|
| Nov 15, 1787: Brutus No. 3 (New York)
| The Antifederalist Brutus continues his efforts to point out "the principal defects" of the proposed Constitution. He examines "its parts more minutely, and show[s] that the powers are not properly deposited for the security of public liberty." He criticizes the scheme of representation in both the House and Senate. The small number of representatives to be chosen violates the core meaning of representation: "those who are placed instead of the people should possess their sentiments and feelings, and be governed by their interests; or, in other words, should bear the strongest resemblance of those in whose room they are substituted." But under the plan "the well born and highest orders in life, " and not "the farmer, merchant, mechanic" will be represented
Full Text of Document |
|
| Nov 15, 1787: Essay by a Georgian (Georgia)
| The Antifederalist A Georgian invites his readers to decide whether or not the new plan of government conforms to "that very government intended by our glorious Declaration of Independence." He is concerned that the proposed government will lead to the erection of "an ARISTOCRATIC government, whereby about 70 nabobs would lord over three millions of people as slaves." He begs his readers to "call to mind our glorious Declaration of Independence; read it, and compare it with the federal constitution; what a degree of apostacy will you not then discover." Guard "against the numberless evils of an unlimited taxation, against the fatal effects of a standing army in times of peace, against an unfair and too small representation."
Full Text of Document |
|
| Nov 22, 1787: Cato No. 5 (New York)
| The New York Antifederalist Cato criticizes the scheme of representation articulated in Article One of the proposed Constitution: "biennial elections for representatives are a departure from the safe democratic principle of annual ones, that the number of representatives are too few," and that the Senate contains the seeds of aristocracy.
Full Text of Document |
|
| Nov 28, 1787: Old Whig No. 7 (Pennsylvania)
| The Old Whig reiterates a central Antifederalist objection to the proposed Constitution: the delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not have the authority to scrap the Articles of Confederation, nor do they have the authority to deny the people of the states the right to alter or abolish the plan submitted to them. Accordingly, Old Whig suggests that another Continental Convention, collecting the opinions of the people is in order.
Full Text of Document |
|
| Nov 30, 1787: Centinel IV (Pennsylvania)
| Concerning the proposed Constitution, the Antifederalist Centinel is distrustful of "the conduct of its authors and patrons." After all, "the evil genius of darkness presided at its birth, it came forth under the veil of mystery, its true features being carefully concealed, and every deceptive art has been and is practicing to have this spurious brat received as the genuine offspring of heaven born liberty & .It is to be lamented that the interested and designing have availed themselves so successfully of the present crisis" to create a government destructive to the principles of liberty.
Full Text of Document |
|
|
| December 1787
| Dec 1787: John DeWitt No. 5 (Massachusetts)
| The Massachusetts Antifederalist John De Witt informs his readers that the proponents of the Constitution have not engaged in "cool reasoning and dispassionate argument." Instead, they bestow on the critics "the opprobrious terms of insurgents, destroyers of all government, bankrupts, defaulters, and anti federalists, which is worse than jacobitism."
Full Text of Document |
|
| Dec 3, 1787: Agrippa No. 4 (Massachusetts)
| The Antifederalist Agrippa reminds his readers "it is the opinion of the ablest writers on the subject, that no extensive empire can be governed upon republican principles, and that such a government will degenerate to a despotism unless it be made up of a confederacy of smaller states, each having the full powers of internal regulation. This is precisely the principle which has hitherto preserved our freedom." Moreover, "the idea of an uncompounded republic, on an average, one thousand miles in length, and eight hundred in breadth, and containing six million white inhabitants all reduced to the same standard of morals or habits, and of laws, is in itself an absurdity and contrary to the whole experience of mankind." But that is the idea behind the proposed plan.
Full Text of Document |
|
| Dec 13, 1787: Brutus No. 5 (New York)
| The Antifederalist Brutus turns to an examination of "the nature and extent of the powers granted to the legislature." He interprets these powers, or means, in light of the Preamble that sets down the ends of the new government; he declares that Congress is granted all power that is necessary and proper for carrying out the comprehensive and undefined. All the more reason, says Brutus, for a Bill of Rights restricting the reach of congress over the states and the people and for a larger number of representatives in the Congress.
Full Text of Document |
|
| Dec 16, 1787: Cato No. 6 (New York)
| New York Antifederalist Cato warns his readers that 1) the new government will be an expensive burden on ordinary people 2) "none but men of opulence will hold a seat" in the Senate 3) the House is too "feeble" to "hold the balance against them" and 4) " the executive and senate can destroy the independence of the majority in the house of representatives and 5) "you are told to adopt this government first, and you will always be able to alter it afterwards. This would be first submitting to be slaves and then taking care of your liberty; when your chains are on, then act like freemen."
Full Text of Document |
|
| Dec 18, 1787: Agrippa No. 7 (Massachusetts)
| The Antifederalist Agrippa argues that 1) "it is vain to tell us that we ought to overlook local interests. It is only by protecting local concerns, that the interest of the whole is preserved." But that is what the proponents of the plan "tell us." He argues further that 2) "the perfection of government depends on the equality of its operation, as far as human affairs will admit, upon all parts of the empire, and upon all the citizens." He then proceeds to outline how the proposed plan will be unequal in its operation.
Full Text of Document |
|
| Dec 21, 1787: Robert Yates and John Lansing, Reasons of Dissent (New York)
| New York Antifederalists John Lansing and Robert Yates informed Governor Clinton that there were two principles that motivated their early departure from the Constitutional Convention. "First. The limited and well-defined powers under which we acted, and which could not, on any possible construction, embrace an idea of such magnitude, as to assent to a general constitution, in subversion of that of the state. "Second. A conviction of the impracticability of establishing a general government, pervading every part of the United States, and extending essential benefits to all."
Full Text of Document |
|
|
| December 1787
| Dec 27, 1787: Centinel VII (Pennsylvania)
| The Antifederalist Centinel, writing shortly after the passage of the Constitution by the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, refuses to validity of the outcome. "Will the act of one sixth of the people, and this too founded on deception and surprise, bind the community? Is it thus that the altar of liberty, so recently crimsoned with the blood of our worthies, is to be prostrated and despotism reared on its ruins? Certainly not." He urges the people to require their representatives to call a convention for the purpose of overturning the proposed plan created by "a junto composed of the lordly and high minded gentry, of the profligate and the needy office hunters, of men principally who in the late war skulked from the common danger."
Full Text of Document |
|
| Dec 29, 1787: Centinel VIII (Pennsylvania)
| The Antifederalist Centinel; asks where is the crisis that demands the hasty adoption of an untried plan of government? There is none: "a happy equality and independency pervades the community; it is here the human mind, untrammeled by the restraints of arbitrary power, expands every faculty & The unfortunate and oppressed of all nations fly to this grand asylum where liberty is ever protected, and industry crowned with success." He thus questions the motives of the Framers and accusing them of being "conspirators against our liberties." In fact, "so flagrant, so audacious a conspiracy against the liberties of a free people is without precedent."
Full Text of Document |
|
| Dec 31, 1787: Federal Farmer No. 7 (Virginia)
| The Antifederalist Federal Farmer argues that underlying all forms of government there are but two principles or "important springs which alone move the machines and give them their intended influence and control." Theirs are "force and persuasion." In this essay, "I repeat my observation that the plan proposed will have a doubtful operation between the two principles; and whether it will preponderate towards persuasion or force is uncertain."
Full Text of Document |
|
|
|
1788
| January 1788
| Jan 1788: Address by a Plebian (New York)
| The Massachusetts Federalists proposed and a sufficient number of Antifederalists agreed to what is known as the Massachusetts Compromise: ratify now amend later. The New York Antifederalist, A Plebian, urges New Yorkers to reject this strategy. "When we consider the nature and operation of government, the idea of receiving a form radically defective under the notion of making the necessary amendments is evidently absurd." We are asked to adopt the Constitution first, and then amend it. "I ask, why not amend, and then adopt it?"
Full Text of Document |
|
| Jan 3, 1788: Cato No. 7 (New York)
| The New York Antifederalist Cato warns his readers that the proposed Constitution does not provide an adequate check and balance system between the Senate and the President. Accordingly, and contrary to the advice of Montesquieu, the American people are being asked to place an unreasonable trust in the virtue of their rulers.
Full Text of Document |
|
| Jan 4, 1788: Federal Farmer No. 9 (Virginia)
| The Antifederalist Federal Farmer states that the objective in framing free government ought to the creation of a scheme of representation so that we have "equal liberty, and equal laws diffusing their influence among all orders of men; to obtain this we must guard against the bias of interest and passions, against interested combinations, secret or open. We must aim at a balance of efforts and strength." He argues that the proposed Constitution fails this objective.
Full Text of Document |
|
| Jan 23, 1788: Federal Farmer No. 17 (Virginia)
| The Antifederalist Federal Farmer argues that "a free and mild government can be preserved in their extensive territories, only under the substantial forms of a federal republic." This essay answers the question: "how far" does the proposed plan "partake of a federal republic?" The answer is not far enough.
`
Full Text of Document |
|
| Jan 29, 1788: Agrippa No. 15 (Massachusetts)
| Massachusetts Antifederalist Agrippa, with James Wilson's October speech in mind, suggests " the friends of the new plan appear to have nothing more in view than to establish it by a popular current, without any regard to the truth of its principles. Propositions, novel, erroneous and dangerous, are boldly advanced to support a system, which does not appear to be founded in, but in every instance to contradict, the experience of mankind."
Full Text of Document |
|
| Jan 31, 1788: Brutus No. 11 (New York)
| The New York Antifederalist Brutus claims "I have not met with any writer, who has discussed the judicial powers with any degree of accuracy." To that end he "first examine the nature and extent of the judicial powers and second, inquire whether the courts who are to exercise them are so constituted as to afford reasonable ground of confidence that they will exercise them for the general good." He is particularly concerned about the "equity power" of the Supreme Court.
Full Text of Document |
|
|
|
|
