Had been the Anti-Federalists Proper? | JP
“A monarchy, or a corrupt, tyrannical aristocracy”
That’s what George Mason predicted we’d get under the constitution. And he was far from alone.
The Anti-Federalists repeatedly warned that the constitution wouldn’t actually create a federal union. Instead, they argued, it would result in a consolidated national government. They pointed to specific parts of the document – what they considered weapons baked into the system – that would guarantee this outcome.
What follows are five of those weapons – including taxation – straight from Mason, Cato, Elbridge Gerry, the Pennsylvania Dissent, and Luther Martin.
THREE WORDS
The Pennsylvania Dissent started right at the top. The first three words of the preamble – “We the People.” This, they warned, proved the document was intentionally creating a consolidated national system instead of a federal union.
“In short, every species of consolidation pervades the whole constitution. It begins with an annunciation that such was the intention.”
A union of states, they explained, is fundamentally different from a compact between all the people.
“The preamble begins with the words, “We the people of the United States,” which is the style of a compact between individuals entering into a state of society, and not that of a confederation of states.”
Cato also pointed to the preamble as proof the system wasn’t built for federalism.
“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.”
Such a consolidation, as George Mason explained, would be a rejection of all the principles of the American Revolution and the Articles of Confederation.
“The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us.”
Elbridge Gerry took direct aim at the claim that the constitution took a middle ground – and would create a partly federal, partly national system.
“The constitution proposed has few if any federal features; but is rather a system of national government.”
Luther Martin explained the primary difference: A federal system is one of states, and that’s it.
“A federal government is formed by the States, as States, that is, in their sovereign capacities, in the same manner as treaties and alliances are formed.”
This was the biggest change from the system under the Articles of Confederation, and the Federalists weren’t hiding it. The Constitution was intentionally designed to empower the federal government to operate directly on individuals instead of using requisitions on the states.
As a result, the Pennsylvania Dissent warned this could only end in tyranny.
“An iron-handed despotism as nothing short of the supremacy of despotic sway could connect and govern these United States under one government.”
TAXATION
These Anti-Federalists didn’t just name the “dreaded consolidation” as the inevitable end result. They repeatedly pointed to the weapons they believed would guarantee it, starting with federal taxing power.
This was just the power to tax under the general Welfare clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, over a century before the 16th Amendment made federal taxing power much greater, and the results much worse.
“in short, every species of taxation, whether of an external or internal nature is comprised in section the 8th, of article the 1st, viz. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.”
George Mason held that this one clause – on its own – was all that was needed to turn a confederation into a consolidated, national government.
“The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it.”
Luther Martin warned they’d use this power to squeeze the people dry, until not a drop was left.
“it will, by the imposition of the variety of taxes, imposts, stamps, excises, and other duties, squeeze from them the little money they may acquire, the hard earnings of their industry, as you would squeeze the juice from an orange, till not a drop more can be extracted”
With a brutal analogy, Elbridge Gerry added that this endless taxation would spell the end of liberty.
“the people will bleed with taxes at every pore, & that the existence of their liberties will soon be terminated.”
STANDING ARMIES
All that taxation would require enforcement, and the Pennsylvania Dissent warned this would create an excuse for a standing army – the bane of liberty.
“A standing army in the hands of a government placed so independent of the people, may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties; it may be employed to enforce the collection of 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.”
George Mason predicted the power to establish a standing army would destroy the militia in practice and effect.
“There are various ways of destroying the militia. A standing army may be perpetually established in their stead. I abominate and detest the idea of a Government, where there is a standing army. The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before.”
That meant disarming the people themselves.
“That is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them.”
JUDICIARY
Of course, some people just think that the courts will save us. The Anti-Federalists weren’t buying it. As Gerry explained, they predicted the federal judiciary would make things worse.
“The judicial department will be oppressive”
Article III, Section 1 delegated to Congress the power to establish inferior federal courts, while Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 allowed Congress to regulate the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.
The Pennsylvania Dissent targeted this power to structure and regulate the federal judiciary. They predicted it would create a monster that turned every case into a federal case.
“The judicial powers vested in Congress are also so various and extensive, that by legal ingenuity they may be extended to every case, and thus absorb the state judiciaries”
Mason warned this would make justice expensive and nearly impossible for ordinary people to obtain.
“The Judiciary of the United States is so constructed & extended, as to absorb & destroy the Judiciarys of the several States; thereby rendering Law as tedious intricate & expensive, and Justice as unattainable, by a great Part of the Community, as in England, and enabling the Rich to oppress* & ruin the Poor.”
Like Mason did with taxation, the Pennsylvania dissenters warned that judicial power alone 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.”
CONGRESS
The Anti-Federalists repeatedly warned the House of Representatives would have far too few members to actually represent the people. Cato’s warning about the corruption and treachery this would produce sounds prophetic.
“It is a very important objection to this government, that the representation consists of so few; too few to resist the influence of corruption, and the temptation to treachery, against which all governments ought to take precautions”
When it came to the Senate, the Pennsylvania dissent saw the same problem, only worse. At the time, just 25 or 26 men could make decisions for millions.
“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.”
One of the leading Anti-Federalist themes was strict separation of powers, where legislative, executive, and judicial powers would be distinct. Elbridge Gerry pointed to the Senate and President as dangerously mixed.
“The executive is blended with, and will have an undue influence over, the legislature”
The Anti-Federalists hammered the Senate’s structure from every angle. Long six-year terms and no recall power, as George Mason predicted, would produce a national aristocracy rather than a branch that represented the states.
“Those Gentlemen who will be elected Senators will fix themselves in the federal town, and become citizens of that town more than of our State.”
Put it all together, and Cato saw where this would lead: Senate power would be impossible to resist.
“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?”
PRESIDENT
The Anti-Federalists believed the executive branch placed far too much control in the hands of a single individual. Luther Martin predicted this would become an elective monarchy – powers that “will enable him, when he pleases, to become a king in name, as well as in substance.”
The pardon power was of particular concern for George Mason. He saw it as an open invitation for crime and corruption.
“The President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardons for Treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from Punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the Crime, & thereby prevent a Discovery of his own Guilt.”
Cato’s chief target was the four-year presidential term. He argued this was far too long, and would give a president time to build a system of patronage and personal loyalty.
“the deposit of vast trusts in the hands of a single magistrate enables him in their exercise to create a numerous train of dependents.”
A four-year term doesn’t just enable corruption, it nurtures something more dangerous: unchecked presidential appetite for power.
“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.”
As a result, you’d end up with a kind of royal court with almost unlimited power. And death to liberty.
“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.”
END GAME
The Anti-Federalists saw each of these as a weapon for consolidation on its own. But tied together? Much worse, an impossible scenario for liberty to survive.
Cato emphasized how, even back then, the political, economic, and social views of the people were vastly different.
“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”
Because of this, it would be impossible to achieve the promises of the preamble in such a system.
“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”
Instead, we’d end up with competing interests fighting against each other for power and control.
“This unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in their nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be like a house divided against itself.”
George Mason gave us the final diagnosis. We’d end up with one of two results. And either one would be a deadly disease for liberty.
“This Government will commence in a moderate Aristocracy; it is at prese[nt] impossible to foresee whether it will, in its operation, produce a Monarchy, or a corrupt oppressive Aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the other.”
Latest posts by Michael Boldin (see all)