A Republic at Risk: Cato’s Anti-Federalist Warnings
“A vile and arbitrary aristocracy or a monarchy.”
That’s what the anti-federalist writer Cato warned we would get under the Constitution. This was because, in his view, vague and dangerous provisions, expansive taxing power, excessive executive authority, and too much trust in government agents, along with a system that would incentivize endless foreign wars, would lead to a consolidated system based on violence and force.
In a series of seven essays published in the New-York Journal, and Daily Patriotic Register between September 27, 1787, and January 3, 1788, the anonymous author argued against ratification, predicting that the constitutional system would facilitate widespread abuse of power and ultimately the destruction of liberty.
Although George Mason’s objections penned in the waning days of the Philadelphia Convention were already in circulation, the Cato articles were among the first published newspaper essays specifically opposing ratification.
The pen name Cato held symbolic significance.
Cato the Younger was a Roman senator during the late Republic. He was known for his advocacy for old Roman values that he believed were in decline. He was also noteworthy in his opposition to Julius Caesar’s rise to power centralizing authority in the Roman government.
In the founding generation, Cato was viewed as a symbol of republican virtue, individual liberty, and resistance to tyranny.
URGING CAUTION
Cato’s first essay, published just 10 days after the end of the Philadelphia Convention, was essentially a call for caution and careful deliberation.
“??Without directly engaging as an advocate for this new form of national government, or as an opponent–let me conjure you to consider this a very important crisis of your safety and character.”
While he approached this first essay as a neutral observer, there were already signs that he was skeptical of the plan. His use of the term “national” was something of a giveaway. The word insinuated a centralized government that would swallow up the states – an idea that was not widely embraced at the time.
Cato cautioned that the people shouldn’t embrace the plan just because there “are defects in the federal system” and “something must be done.” He urged the people not to simply “adopt any thing–teach the members of that convention, that you are capable of a supervision of their conduct.”
He reminded his readers that the door for amendments to the Constitution remained open, or even “give you another, if it is required.”
“Deliberate, therefore, on this new national government with coolness; analize it with criticism; and reflect on it with candour.”
CAESAR
In response, a writer under the pen name Ceasar slapped Cato down, rejecting any suggestion that amendments could still be added, writing, “We must reject, IN TOTO, or vice versa; just take it as it is; and be thankful.”
The author was most likely Alexander Hamilton. He went on to insinuate that if it wasn’t ratified, the Constitution would be imposed by military force.
“I would also advise him to give his vote (as he will probably be one of the Electors) to the American Fabius [George Washington]: it will be more healthy for this country, and this state, that he should be induced to accept of the Presidency of the New Government, than that he should be solicited again to accept of the command of an army.”
Cato hit back at “Ceasar” in his second essay, characterizing the comments as an insult to a free people.
“He ridicules your prerogative, power, and majesty—he talks of this proferred constitution as the tender mercy of a benevolent sovereign to deluded subjects, or, as his tyrant name-sake, of his proferred grace to the virtuous Cato:—he shuts the door of free deliberation and discussion, and declares that you must receive this government in manner and form as it is proferred.” [Emphasis original]
Cato asked his readers, “Is not your indignation roused at this absolute, imperious style?”
He took umbrage at Ceasar’s arrogance and the notion that the people had to either take it or leave it, reminding his readers they were ultimately the source of power.
“In democratic republics the people collectively are considered as the sovereign – all legislative, judicial, and executive power, is inherent in and derived from them.”
Cato also brought up an important point that was picked up on by other anti-federalists – the fact that Americans just fought a long bloody war to free themselves from a centralized government.
“For what did you open the veins of your citizens and expend their treasure? For what did you throw off the yoke of Britain and call yourselves independent?”
In his second essay, Cato also questioned the legitimacy of the Philadelphia Convention, arguing that it went beyond its authority.
“This new government, therefore, founded in usurpation, is referred to your opinion as the origin of power not heretofore delegated, and, to this end, the exercise of the prerogative of free examination is essentially necessary.”
CONSOLIDATION & FORCE
In his third essay, Cato got to the heart of his argument, warning about “consolidation” – the overwhelming centralization of power in the national government.
“The recital, or premises on which the new form of government is erected, declares a consolidation or union of all the thirteen parts, or states, into one great whole, under the firm of the United States, for all the various and important purposes therein set forth.”
In effect, he was categorizing the system as a national government, as he hinted at in his first essay.
This argument against consolidation was taken up by virtually every other prominent anti-federalist.
Cato went on to explain that a consolidated government for the United States would fail simply due to the size and diversity of the country.
“Whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and politics, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity.” [Emphasis original]
Quoting Montesquieu, Cato asserted that it is natural for “a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist.”
And what could the people expect under a consolidated system?
“Impracticability in the just exercise of it, your freedom insecure, even this form of government limited in its continuance, the employments of your country disposed of to the opulent, to whose contumely you will continually be an object.”
He noted that consolidation places significant power in a relatively few hands. This, he warned, has consequences.
“You must risk much, by indispensably placing trusts of the greatest magnitude, into the hands of individuals whose ambition for power, and aggrandizement, will oppress and grind you–where from the vast extent of your territory, and the complication of interests, the science of government will become intricate and perplexed, and too mysterious for you to understand and observe.”
Ultimately, he warned people would “be conducted into a monarchy, either limited or despotic.”
Cato also asserted that such a consolidated system could only be held together by force.
“Can mildness and moderation exist in a government where the primary incident in its exercise must be force? Will not violence destroy confidence, and can equality subsist where the extent, policy, and practice of it will naturally lead to make odious distinctions among citizens?”
Ultimately, that system of force would be impossible without a standing army. He wrote that “malcontents” would raise up factions and “the necessity to enforce the execution of revenue laws (a fruitful source of oppression) on the extremes and in the other districts of the government, will incidentally and necessarily require a permanent force.”
EXECUTIVE POWER
In his fourth essay, Cato tackled the executive branch, warning that it would have too much power.
He was particularly concerned about four-year terms of office.
He referenced Montesquieu on this issue as well, arguing that “the greatness of the power must be compensated by the brevity of the duration,” and asserted that any term longer than a year “may be dangerous.”
“It is, therefore, obvious to the least intelligent mind to account why great power in the hands of a magistrate, and that power connected with considerable duration, may be dangerous to the liberties of a republic.”
Cato pointed out that “the deposit of vast trusts in the hands of a single magistrate enables him in their exercise to create a numerous train of dependents.”
“This tempts his ambition, which in a republican magistrate is also remarked, to be pernicious, and the duration of his office for any considerable time favors his views, gives him the means and time to perfect and execute his designs; he therefore fancies that he may be great and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens, and raising himself to permanent grandeur on the ruins of his country.”
Cato also objected to the Electoral College, arguing that “the representative of the people should be of their immediate choice.” He warned that the indirect election would “lead you into a system which you heretofore reprobated as odious.”
Cato thought having a vice president was “as unnecessary as it is dangerous,” He especially objected to the VP serving as president of the Senate due to the “blending of executive and legislative powers.”
As did many Anti-Federalists, Cato was wary and generally believed powers should be strictly separated. In his view, the role of the executive in some legislative functions was dangerous, especially given his control over the military and the issues of war and peace.
“Will not the exercise of these powers therefore tend either to the establishment of a vile and arbitrary aristocracy or monarchy?”
VAGUE AND DANGEROUS
In his fifth essay, Cato argued that many of the Constitution’s provisions were vague. He wrote, “inexplicitness pervades this whole political fabric.” He warned this would give people with power lots of wiggle room to increase it.
He emphasized the importance of clear boundaries.
“On the one hand it fixes barriers which the ambitious and tyrannically disposed magistrate dare not overleap, and on the other, becomes a wall of safety to the community.”
This was the situation the colonists had faced under the rule of the British and their unwritten constitution. Cato noted that “mere implication was too feeble to restrain the unbridled ambition of a bad man or afford security against negligence, cruelly, or any other defect of mind.” And he emphasized, “A general presumption that rulers will govern well is not a sufficient security.”
Cato warned, “You are about to precipitate yourselves into a sea of uncertainty, and adopt a system so vague, and which has discarded so many of your valuable rights.”
He emphasized this with a rhetorical question: “Is it because you do not believe that an American can be a tyrant?”
Cato said if that was the plan, “You rest on a weak basis.”
“Americans are like other men in similar situations, when the manners and opinions of the community are changed by the causes I mentioned before, and your political compact inexplicit, your posterity will find that great power connected with ambition, luxury, and flattery, will as readily produce a Caesar, Caligula, Nero, and Domitian in America, as the same causes did in the Roman empire.”
Cato then pivoted to take on the proposed legislature.
He expressed a similar concern about the House as he had the presidency – that biennial elections gave representatives too long in office. And he believed the six-year term for senators was even worse.
He also lamented that “the number of representatives are too few.” He warned that the relatively small number of representatives would not be able to “resist the influence of corruption, and the temptation to treachery, against which all governments ought to take precautions.”
He pointed out that “the number of senators and representatives proposed for this vast continent, does not equal those of your own state; how great the disparity, if you compare them with the aggregate numbers in the United States.”
PREDICTIONS: TAXATION AND WAR
In his sixth essay, Cato made several ominous predictions.
He started with the issue of taxation, warning that the federal government would likely be much more expensive than advertised. He called the idea that the government would be able to run on the sources of trade or duties on imports “delusive.” He anticipated new taxes, including “a capitation or poll-tax, window lights, and a long train of impositions which their ingenuity will suggest.”
This would drain people’s pockets, leaving little for themselves.
“If you anticipate, what will be the enormous expence of this new government added also to your own, little will that portion be which will be left to you.”
He also reiterated his warnings about the development of an aristocracy due primarily to the makeup of the Senate.
“When the senate, so important a branch of the legislature, is so far removed from the people, as to have little or no connexion with them; when their duration in office is such as to have the resemblance to perpetuity, when they are connected with the executive, by the appointment of all officers, and also, to become a judiciary for the trial of officers of their own appointments: added to all this, when none but men of opulence will hold a seat, what is there left to resist and repel this host of influence and power?”
He insisted that the House would be insufficient to check the Senate because of its small number of representatives.
He also warned about the potential for endless wars and other nefarious policies through the treaty power.
“By treaties you may defalcate part of the empire; engagements may be made to raise an army, and you may be transported to Europe, to fight the wars of ambitious princes; money may be contracted for, and you must pay it; and a thousand other obligations may be entered into; all which will become the supreme law of the land, and you are bound by it.”
He closed the sixth essay warning that “infallibility pervades every part of the system.”
“Neither the executive nor his council, who are a collective body, and his advisers, can be brought to punishment for mal-administration.”
TOO MUCH TRUST
In his seventh and final essay, Cato hammered home the fact that the structure of the proposed government relied too much on the character of the people in power, and he warned that this would be a threat to liberty.
For instance, he argued that the Senate and president were “improperly connected.”
“Their dependence on each other will prevent either from being a check upon the other; they must act in concert, and whether the power and influence of the one or the other is to prevail, will depend on the character and abilities of the men who hold those offices at the time.”
Cato pointed out that “hitherto we have tied up our rulers in the exercise of their duties by positive restrictions.” He conceded that “if the cord has been drawn too tight,” it could be loosened “to the necessary extent.” But he emphatically warned, “do not entirely unbind them.”
He continued writing, “I am no enemy to placing a reasonable confidence in them.” But he insisted the Constitution went too far.
“Such an unbounded one as the advocates and framers of this new system advise you to, would be dangerous to your liberties; it has been the ruin of other governments, and will be yours, if you adopt with all its latitudinal powers unlimited confidence in governors as well as individuals is frequently the parent of deception.”
He also included a warning from Montesquieu.
“The course of government is attended with an insensible descent to evil, and there is no reascending to good without very great efforts.”
While this may seem cynical, as Cato pointed out, this view is based on observations of human nature.
“The plain inference from this doctrine is, that rulers in all governments will erect an interest separate from the ruled, which will have a tendency to enslave them.”
This means the people need to maintain “principles of mistrust” when it comes to those in power. Cato maintained that this was the only way of “interrupting this insensible descent and warding off the evil as long as possible.”
This sums up the overriding message of all seven essays.
CONCLUSION: CHECKS NOT TRUST
Taking the 12 essays together, it’s clear Cato believed the Constitution would place too much power in the hands of too few people, with insufficient checks in the system to control them.
That, he believed, was a recipe for disaster.
Without the proper checks and balances, you have to trust people with power to do the right thing. That is no bulwark for liberty.
Simply put, unchecked power leads to tyranny, and it’s a slippery slope down the path to despotism.
Given human nature and people’s propensity to expand and abuse power, Cato warned that the centralizing tendency inherent in the Constitution combined with insufficient checks and balances would cause the system to devolve into an “arbitrary aristocracy or a monarchy” with increasing consolidation, executive overreach, burdensome taxation, and endless wars.
Setting aside the accuracy of his predictions, Cato’s essays underscore an important point we need to keep in mind today – liberty requires not only a strong system of checks and limits on power, but it can only exist if the people maintain constant vigilance. Cato was trying to do that in his time. It’s up to the people to follow his example today.
Latest posts by Mike Maharrey (see all)