Having thus far devoted quite a bit
of ink to examining and commenting on some of the many essays that make up the
Federalist Papers, it occurred to me that it would be only fitting and proper
to also explore the other side of the 1787 ratification debate. By this I mean
the Anti-Federalist Papers, a collection of essays written by opponents of the
proposed Constitution who took their case to the public via newspapers in an
attempt to counter the writings of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John
Jay. Unlike the effort led by Hamilton, which was organized and cooperative,
the Anti-Federalists did not work in concert or necessarily see themselves as
representing a united front. To that end, some made use of pseudonyms (like
Brutus, Plebian, Federal Farmer and Sydney) while others published under their
own names (like Patrick Henry or Melancton Smith), and attempts at producing
collections of their writings have varied significantly in size because there
is no mutually agreed-upon list of who is actually considered an
Anti-Federalist. Regardless, there are under the broad Anti-Federalist umbrella
various series of essays that cover a wide range of topics to great effect.
Those written under the name Brutus are among the best regarded, and compose
together sixteen parts. That which will be examined here is the second in the
series, and concerns itself with the necessity of a bill of rights.
As
ever, I’d like to take a moment before diving into the text itself to establish
a few points of context; in this case mainly having to do with the nature of
Anti-Federalism and the identity of Brutus himself.
As
already mentioned the Anti-Federalists were a diverse group, almost to the
point that referring to them as a group would seem misleading. They couldn’t be
easily defined geographically or economically; some were men of wealth and
establishment while others were of decidedly middling status, and they came
from states across the Union. The root of their opposition to the Constitution
was similarly varied: some believed that the proposed federal government would inevitably
threaten the liberties and prestige of the various states; some argued that the
creation of a centralized executive branch would lead to a rebirth of the
tyranny that the recent Revolution had attempted to cast off; some felt, as
individuals, that their fundamental rights were at risk; and some believed that
the Articles of Confederation were an adequate means of governance, or that the
proposed constitution was simply too strong to be trusted. Within this rather
broad spectrum there were moderates and extremists, from those that believed
the Constitution was simply in need of amendment before it was ratified to
those that believed it represented the greatest threat to American liberty
since the passage of the Intolerable Acts in the 1770s. As the ratification
debate got underway and as the Federalist Papers began their print run the
Anti-Federalists made themselves heard in kind, and set about dissecting both
the Constitution itself and the arguments presented Hamilton and his
co-authors.
It
would be difficult to say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how effective the
efforts of the Anti-Federalists really were. Obviously the Constitution was
ultimately ratified, thereby completely dashing the hopes of a decent portion
of their number. More to the point, I should say, it was ratified without any
alterations or amendments. This did not remain the case for very long, however,
and therein lays perhaps the greatest legacy of the Anti-Federalist movement.
Amendments to the Constitution were considered by many to be absolutely
essential, even among those that generally favored its adoption. Where
disagreement most often took root concerned how far the amendment process
should go, and whether it should pre-date ratification or post-date it.
Initially, most who favored the inclusion of some kind of bill of rights argued
that its inclusion must come before ratification. This was perhaps in hope that
the issue would not be swept under the rug once the Constitution was formally
established, but rather be made an absolute pre-condition. Though this position
was overcome by pro-ratification elements in some states, in Massachusetts it
proved almost completely intractable. After protracted negotiation, and at
least one instance of physical violence, an agreement was reached whereby
approval of the Constitution came only with the provision that a bill of rights
would be among the first amendments recommended to the newly minted Congress.
The “amendment-before-ratification” supporters had become
“amendment-after-ratification” advocates, likely out of fear of being left out
of the new government if it was eventually adopted, and similar transformations
followed suit in New Hampshire, Virginia and New York. Still, resistance proved
so strong in Rhode Island and North Carolina that neither state endorsed
ratification until after the Constitution was adopted, elections held, the
President and Congress inaugurated and amendments approved (North Carolina
joined the Union in 1789, Rhode Island in 1790).
While there has been a degree of
speculation over the centuries as to the identity of Brutus, most authorities
on the matter now agree that one Robert Yates was almost certainly the author
of the sixteen essays published under the name. This is a conclusion to which I
agree, and on that note I’d like to take a moment for a brief overview of
Yates’ life and career up to the late 1780s. Born in Schenectady, New York in
1738, Yates was the son of a merchant who initially pursued a career in
surveying before taking up the law in the 1750s. He did not appear to have
attended any of the colleges then operating in the colonies (such as the
College of New Jersey, Kings College in New York, or Virginia’s College of
William & Mary), but studied law under future Governor of New Jersey
William Livingston and was licensed in 1760. In subsequent years he
supplemented his income by continuing to operate as a surveyor and
cartographer, and in the 1770s was elected as an alderman for the city of
Albany. Having been involved in the organized resistance to the Stamp Act in
the 1760s, Yates also took an active part in Revolutionary politics as they
emerged in New York after 1775. A member of the Albany Committee of
Correspondence (a kind of alternate government to the royally approved colonial
administration), and the Provincial Congress (the colonial/state legislature)
he helped coordinate New York’s war effort, and in 1776/77 served in the
convention that drafted the state’s first constitution. In 1777 he was
appointed to the state Supreme Court, and during his tenure there became an
ally of longstanding New York Governor George Clinton and his anti-federalist
faction. In 1787 he was appointed, along with John Lansing Jr. and Alexander Hamilton,
to represent New York at the Philadelphia Convention. It was his belief that
the purpose of the convention was to amend the Articles of Confederation so as
to make them more effective; when it became clear to him that the majority of
delegate were in favor of tossing the Articles altogether and drafting an
entirely new governing charter he chose, along with Lansing, to depart. When
the finished Constitution was subsequently presented to the states for
ratification Yates was selected to attend the resulting convention in
Poughkeepsie as a supporter of the anti-federalist position.
As
to the name “Anti-Federalist,” it was certainly not of their choosing. During
the Revolution it had become common for a person who supported the union of the
states under the Articles of the Confederation to refer to themselves and those
of like mind as federalists. At the conclusion of hostilities in 1783, however,
critics of the Articles and the ineffective government they created
appropriated the term to signify those in favor of measures that would enhance
the power and efficacy of the federal government. These measures included the
drafting of an entirely new constitution, opponents of which were summarily
dubbed “Anti-Federalists.” Meant to imply a lack of patriotism and/or
opposition to Congress, the label was roundly rejected by many state and local
groups who objected to the Constitution, and who attempted to recapture the
federalist moniker for themselves. They were ultimately unsuccessful, despite
the efforts of authors like “A Federal Farmer” and organizations like the
Federal Republican Committee, and the terms Anti-Federalism and Anti-Federalist
have since completely solidified as referring to the late 18th-century
unorganized opposition to the United States Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment