5
The Anti-Federalists
Scholars today classify those who opposed the new constitution as Anti-Federalists, although they too believed in federal government. Their federalism was based on a compact between states that allowed them to control the actions of the national government and limit it to purposes on which they all agreed. This was the structure of the government established by the Articles of Confederation. Their opponents, now called Federalists, believed in a national government with more robust powers that had the power to control the states as well as individual citizens through legislation and executive orders. The Anti-Federalists’ model was closer to the 18th century meaning of “federalism,” yet they lost the debate over the constitution, and today they are ironically remembered for opposing federalism.
The Federal Farmer [most likely Melancton Smith (1744-1798)]
For many years, the Federal Farmer was assumed to be Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794), a Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress during the ratification debate in New York. However, extensive historical research and content analysis led most scholars to change this attribution. The consensus is now that the Federal Farmer was likely Melancton Smith, a wealthy New York merchant and delegate to the Continental Congress between 1785-1787. Smith’s opposition is notable because most wealthy businessmen supported the new constitution because it was likely to prevent states from interfering with interstate commerce.
Although Smith argued against the ratification of the Constitution in his articles, he ultimately voted to ratify it at the New York State Convention in Poughkeepsie in 1788. He remained active in New York State politics, serving in the New York Assembly. He also helped found the New York Manumission Society to abolish slavery. He died in New York City during the yellow fever epidemic of 1798.
Number 7 (December 31, 1787)
In viewing the various governments instituted by mankind, we see their whole force reducible to two principles — the important springs which alone move the machines, and give them their intended influence and control, are force and persuasion: by the former men are compelled, by the latter they are drawn. We denominate a government despotic or free, as the one or other principle prevails in it. Perhaps it is not possible for a government to be so despotic, as not to operate persuasively on some of its subjects; nor is it, in the nature of things, I conceive, for a government to be so free, or so supported by voluntary consent, as never to want force to compel obedience to the laws. In despotic governments one man, or a few men, independent of the people, generally make the laws, command obedience, and enforce it by the sword: one-fourth part of the people are armed, and obliged to endure the fatigues of soldiers, to oppress the others and keep them subject to the laws. In free governments the people, or their representatives, make the laws; their e