The Federal Farmer was an Anti-Federalist who wrote a methodical assessment of the proposed United States Constitution that was among the more important documents of the constitutional ratification debate. The assessment appeared in the form of two pamphlets, the first published in November 1787 and the second in May 1788. The letters, which were addressed to "The Republican," were signed only with the pseudonym "the Federal Farmer." The identity of the author is unknown, though scholars have put forward Richard Henry Lee and Melancton Smith as possibilities, though recent evidence suggests Smith is the most likely author."The Republican" was most likely New York state governor George Clinton.
The Federal Farmer made typical Anti-Federalist arguments, claiming that the Constitution would tear down the sovereign states in favor of a consolidated government, and that this end of the federal system would be destructive of American liberties. The letters were praised at the time for their thoughtfulness, composition, and persuasiveness, and today are among the most widely read works in the Anti-Federalist canon.
James Winthrop was the son of physicist John Winthrop. He graduated from Harvard in 1769, and was wounded at the Battle of Bunker Hill. He was librarian of Harvard from 1772 until 1787. For several years, he was a judge of the court of common pleas, and for a long time register of probate. He was part of the anti-federalist movement.[citation needed] He bequeathed his library to Allegheny College in Meadville, Pennsylvania. He was a charter member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1780.
Passage 1 is excerpted from a published letter written by an author known only as the Federal Farmer. Passage 2 is excerpted from a published letter by Agrippa, the pseudonym of James Winthrop. Winthrop was part of the anti-federalist movement. Both passages were written in 1787.
Passage 1
Our object has been all along, to reform our federal system, and to strengthen our governments, but a new object now presents. The plan of government now proposed is evidently calculated totally to change, in time, our condition as a people. Instead of being thirteen republics, under a federal head, it is clearly designed to make us one consolidated government. Whether such a change can ever be effected in any manner; whether it can be effected without convulsions and civil wars; whether such a change will not totally destroy the liberties of this country--time only can determine.
The confederation was formed when great confidence was placed in the voluntary exertions of individuals, and of the respective states; and the framers of it, to guard against usurpation, so limited and checked the powers. We find, therefore, members of congress urging alterations in the federal system almost as soon as it was adopted. The first interesting question is how far the states can be consolidated into one entire government on free principles. The happiness of the people at large must be the great object with every honest statesman, and he will direct every movement to this point. If we are so situated as a people, as not to be able to enjoy equal happiness and advantages under one government, the consolidation of the states cannot be admitted.
Touching the federal plan, I do not think much can be said in its favor: The sovereignty of the nation, without coercive and efficient powers to collect the strength of it, cannot always be depended on to answer the purposes of government; and in a congress of representatives of sovereign states, there must necessarily be an unreasonable mixture of powers in the same hands.
Independent of the opinions of many great authors, that a free elective government cannot be extended over large territories, a few reflections must evince, that one government and general legislation alone, never can extend equal benefits to all parts of the United States: Different laws, customs, and opinions exist in the different states, which by a uniform system of laws would be unreasonably invaded. The United States contain about a million of square miles, and in half a century will, probably, contain ten millions of people.
End of reading passage.
Passage 2
Let us now consider how far [the new system] is consistent with the happiness of the people and their freedom. 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. No instance can be found of any free government of considerable extent which has been supported upon any other plan. Large and consolidated empires may indeed dazzle the eyes of a distant spectator with their splendour, but if examined more nearly are always found to be full of misery. The reason is obvious. In large states the same principles of legislation will not apply to all the parts. The laws not being made by the people, who felt the inconveniences, did not suit their circumstances. It is under such tyranny that the Spanish provinces languish, and such would be our misfortune and degradation, if we should submit to have the concerns of the whole empire managed by one legislature. To promote the happiness of the people it is necessary that there should be local laws; and it is necessary that those laws should be made by the representatives of those who are immediately subject to the want of them.
It is impossible for one code of laws to suit Georgia and Massachusetts. They must, therefore, legislate for themselves. The laws of Congress are in all cases to be the supreme law of the land, and paramount to the constitutions of the individual states. This new system is, therefore, a consolidation of all the states into one large mass, however diverse the parts may be of which it is to be composed. The idea of an uncompounded republick, on an average, one thousand miles in length, and eight hundred in breadth, and containing six millions of 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. All that part, therefore, of the new system, which relates to the internal government of the states, ought at once to be rejected.
