Anti-Federalist Objections: Pennsylvania Dissent Explained
One of the most influential and widely cited anti-federalist papers wasn’t written by a single individual. It was produced by a group of delegates who rejected the Constitution during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention.
Pennsylvania was the second state to ratify the Constitution, where it was approved by a 46-23 margin. But the debate was more contentious and the opposition more fierce than the lopsided vote may indicate.
After the convention, most of the delegates who voted no put their objections in writing. The “Address and reasons of dissent of the minority of the convention, of the state of Pennsylvania, to their constituents” was reprinted in Pennsylvania newspapers, and also in other states. They were widely viewed as a summary of anti-federalist concerns about the Constitution.
Twenty-one of the 23 dissenters signed this public statement. It not only outlined their objections to the Constitution and their reasons for voting no, but it also chronicled the tactics of supporters of the Constitution during the convention.
The Pennsylvania anti-federalists summed up their experience early in the document.
“We entered on the examination of the proposed system of government, and found it to be such as we could not adopt, without, as we conceived, surrendering up your dearest rights. We offered our objections to the convention, and opposed those parts of the plan, which, in our opinion, would be injurious to you, in the best manner we were able.”
Their objections were grounded by three general principles:
- That an extensive territory can only be governed through a confederacy of republics.
- That the proposed system would establish a consolidated government that would annihilate the states.
- That even if it were possible to govern “so extensive a territory” on a “plan of a consolidated government consistent with the principles of liberty,” the Constitution as presented was “not calculated to attain the object.” Instead, it would produce a despotism, “not by the usual gradations, but with the celerity that has hitherto only attended revolutions affected by the sword.”
CONSOLIDATION
The primary concern was that “consolidation pervades the whole constitution.”
And they warned that this “must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government.”
They further asserted that this consolidated system would result in “an iron-handed despotism,” because, “nothing short of the supremacy of despotic sway could connect and govern these United States under one government.”
The dissenters insisted that “there is no line of distinction drawn between the general, and state governments.”
This was referencing the lack of any language in the Constitution similar to Article II of the Articles of Confederation. This specifically affirmed the sovereignty of the states and declared that they retained every “Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
Due in part to repeated anti-federalist complaints about this, similar language was eventually included in the Bill of Rights as the 10th Amendment.
The Pennsylvania anti-federalists argued that the extensive powers delegated to the federal government would necessarily swallow up the states. They wrote, “The powers of Congress under the new constitution, are complete and unlimited over the purse and the sword, and are perfectly independent of, and supreme over, the state governments: whose intervention in these great points is entirely destroyed.”
They also noted that the Constitution lacked any article of taxation reserved to the states, and worried that this would further the quick march to consolidation.
“The Congress may monopolize every source of revenue, and thus indirectly demolish the state governments, for without funds they could not exist, the taxes, duties and excises imposed by Congress may be so high as to render it impracticable to levy further sums on the same articles.”
Another objection was that the makeup of the federal judiciary would swallow up state courts. They specifically objected to Congress’s power to determine the types of cases federal courts could hear, warning that “by legal ingenuity they may be extended to every case, and thus absorb the state judiciaries.”
They even went so far as to claim that this power – in and of itself – was enough to produce the dreaded consolidation.
“We do not hesitate to pronounce that this power, unaided by the legislative, would effect a consolidation of the states under one government.”
Hammering home the fear of consolidation, they reiterated a point they had already alluded to: that “consistently with the plan of consolidation,” the Constitution lacked any specific provisions reserving the “rights and privileges of the state governments,” as was included in Article II of the Articles of Confederation.
This was one of several issues the dissenters thought should be addressed in a bill of rights.
NO BILL OF RIGHTS
Another major concern was “the omission of a BILL OF RIGHTS.”
They argued that a bill of rights was necessary for “ascertaining and fundamentally establishing those unalienable and personal rights of men, without the full, free and secure enjoyment of which there can be no liberty.”
These are rights “over which it is not necessary for a good government to have the control.”
Before voting on the constitution in the Pennsylvania convention, the opponents proposed a bill of rights, and “after reading these propositions, we declared our willingness to agree to the plan, provided it was so amended as to meet those propositions, or something similar to them.”
Since the 14 proposed amendments were rejected and not even entered into the convention record, these were all included in the published dissent.
“Being desirous that you might know the principles which actuated our conduct, and being prohibited from inserting our reasons of dissent on the minutes of the convention, we have subjoined them for your consideration, as to you alone we are accountable.”
Many of the proposed provisions were eventually adopted in the Bill of Rights.
- Liberty in matters of religion
- Guarantee trial by jury
- The right to a fair speedy trial
- No excessive fines or bail, and no cruel or unusual punishments
- Evidence and warrants required for searches and seizures
- Freedom of speech and the press
- The right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state
- All powers not expressly delegated to the general government remain with the states
They also proposed several amendments that did not find their way into the Bill of Rights, including the right to hunt and fish, a prohibition on federal laws restraining state legislatures from imposing taxes, increasing the representation of the House, reserving to the states to arm and discipline the militia, and an explicit declaration that judicial, legislative and executive power would remain separate, something that James Madison later attempted to include in the body of the Constitution.
STRUCTURAL ISSUES
Along with fears of consolidation and the lack of a bill of rights, the Pennsylvania anti-federalists also took issue with what they viewed as structural problems with the system of government created by the Constitution.
They expressed particular concern about the lack of adequate representation in Congress, saying the “legislature is too small.”
They were particularly wary of the small Senate.
“It appears, that the liberties, happiness, interests, and great concerns, of the whole United States, may be dependent upon the integrity, virtue, wisdom, and knowledge of 25 or 26 men.”
They continued, warning that the Senate would result in “inadequate and unsafe representation.”
“The sense and views of 3 or 4 millions of people diffused over so extensive a territory, comprising such various climates, products, habits, interests, and opinions, can not be collected in so small a body.”
The dissenters also warned that the term of office for senators was too long.
The Pennsylvanians also honed in on another prominent anti-federalist objection to the Constitution – the “undue and dangerous” mixing of executive, legislative, and judicial powers.
They specifically pointed to the Senate’s judicial power to judge impeachments, along with its executive power in approving presidential appointments and treaties. Regarding the treaty power, they warned it could “controul and abrogate the constitutions and laws of the several states.”
The dissenters called “such various, extensive, and important powers combined in one body of men,” “inconsistent with all freedom,” quoting Montesquieu to drive home their point.
“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.”
Having warned that federal taxing power would ultimately swallow up the states, the dissenters returned to the subject later in their statement, because, “The power of direct taxation applies to every individual.”
They specifically referenced the possibility of a federal poll tax, a uniform tax levied on individuals, typically as a prerequisite for voting.
“This is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in its collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head.”
They called these individual taxes “congenial to the nature of despotism.”
“It has ever been a favorite under such governments. Some of those who were in the late general convention from this state, have long labored to introduce a poll-tax among us.”
It took almost 200 years for this warning to be addressed by the 24th Amendment, prohibiting poll taxes in federal elections.
Taking up what was a leading anti-federalist objection, the Pennsylvanians worried about the possibility of a standing army, warning that “in the hands of a government placed so independent of the people, [it] may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties.”
They noted that it could be used to collect “the most oppressive taxes” and to “carry into execution the most arbitrary measures.”
“An ambitious man who may have the army at his devotion, may step up into the throne, and seize upon absolute power.”
The dissenters also expressed concern about Congress’s “absolute unqualified command” over the militia, warning that it could be “instrumental to the destruction of all liberty, both public and private; whether of a personal, civil, or religious nature.”
A FLAWED PROCESS
The Pennsylvania dissenters also took issue with the process used to draft and ratify the Constitution.
Opposition to ratification was centered primarily in the less populous western counties, with Federalist supporters of the plan dominating Philadelphia and surrounding areas.
Anti-federalists took issue from the start, complaining about how Pennsylvania chose delegates to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787.
“They agreed that the deputies sent by them to [Philadelphia] convention should have no compensation for their services, which determination was calculated to prevent the election of any member who resided at a distance from the city.”
They pointed out that there was an aggressive campaign to sell the Constitution through fear even as “the gilded chains were forging in the secret conclave.”
“The meaner instruments of despotism, without, were busily employed in alarming the fears of the people, with dangers which did not exist, and exciting their hopes of greater advantage.”
They also objected to the speed with which supporters called for a ratifying convention in Pennsylvania, arguing that the people didn’t have proper time to consider the pros and cons of the new system.
“Under each circumstances petitions in favor of calling a convention were signed by great numbers in and about the city, before they had leisure to read and examine the system, many of whom, now they are better acquainted with it, and have had time to investigate its principles, are heartily opposed to it.”
As the Pennsylvania Assembly was set to adjourn for the session, federalists wanted to push forward and call for a ratifying convention even though the legislature hadn’t received a copy of the proposed Constitution.
Opponents were in no hurry to begin the process and boycotted the meeting, preventing a quorum. However, the sergeant-at-arms located two of the anti-federalist members, and a mob drug them to the State House, creating the necessary quorum.
The Philadelphia anti-federalists deemed this action illegitimate. Furthermore, they argued that “the state legislators take an oath to do nothing ‘that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the constitution of this state.’”
“The proposed system of government for the United States, if adopted, will alter and may annihilate the constitution of Pennsylvania; and therefore the legislature had no authority whatever to recommend the calling a convention for that purpose.”
Given these facts, “The proceeding could not be considered as binding on the people of this commonwealth.”
Nevertheless, a convention was called and delegates were quickly elected. The dissenters once again objected to the speed of the process.
“The election for members of the convention was held at so early a period and the want of information was so great, that some of us did not know of it until after it was over, and we have reason to believe that great numbers of the people of Pennsylvania have not yet had an opportunity of sufficiently examining the proposed constitution.”
The dissenters were particularly frustrated by the way federalists suppressed information, making it difficult for them to publicize their objections.
“They … determined not to permit us to enter on the minutes our reasons of dissent against any of the articles nor even on the final question our reasons of dissent against the whole.”
Even though the Pennsylvania anti-federalists lacked the representation to stop ratification, supporters of the Constitution worried that if objections became widely known, it could sway public opinion and threaten the prospects of ratification. To prevent this from happening, supporters endeavored to suppress any hint of opposition.
According to historian Pauline Miaier, supporters of ratification were so successful in publicly silencing the opposition that it’s difficult to reconstruct the story of ratification in Pennsylvania today.
For instance, although the Pennsylvania ratifying convention lasted for 25 days, the official journal is only 28 pages long, and nine pages are the text of the Constitution itself.
CONCLUSION
The dissent of the Pennsylvania minority served as one of the early blueprints for anti-federalists as the ratification process moved forward. Other conventions took up the call for amendments, and many of the arguments laid out by the Pennsylvanians were repeated and built upon by opponents in other states.
In particular, worries about consolidation, with warnings that the federal government would swallow up the states, were repeated over and over again by virtually every prominent anti-federalist.
In retrospect, many of the warnings appear prophetic.
But the impact of the Pennsylvania dissent went beyond mere argumentation.
Some of the amendments proposed by the opponents ultimately found their way into the Bill of Rights, and the 24th Amendment addressed one of their specific objections to federal taxing power.
Given the fact that this issue was alleviated nearly two centuries later, one has to wonder what other problems could be addressed and should be a cause for optimism today. It’s never too late to make changes for the better.
Latest posts by Mike Maharrey (see all)