Federal Farmer 1 Explained | What was the Federal Farmer’s Idea of Compromise for the Constitution?

0:00 Welcome to another Bill of Rights Institute Close Read. Today we’re going to be taking a look at Federal Farmer number one, one of the Anti-Federalist Papers. Let’s take a look. So Federal Farmer was another one of the Anti-Federalists. So over the past few months, as you know, if you’ve been following the Channel, we’ve been going through different Federalist Papers and Anti Federalist Papers.

0:21 If you want to take a look, we’ll have all of those linked down in the description and I’ll reference a few of them as we’re going through the video today. But Federal Farmer was another one of these Anti-Federalists or those who are opposing the Constitution or the ratification of the Constitution when it was sent out to the States to be approved. So the question we’re going to look at today is what was Federal Farmer’s biggest issue with the Constitution?

0:43 Why was he writing about it? What was he so passionate about and how was he approaching it and how did that maybe differ from the way that The Federalists were looking at the Constitution? So just to talk about a little bit of some historical context. These are the ratification debates that took place between 1787 and 1788 debating whether or not the Constitution should be adopted to replace the Articles of Confederation.

1:05 There were a bunch of different Anti-Federalist writers. They weren’t all one group. There were other Federalist writers, too. But typically when we think of The Federalists, we’re thinking of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay who wrote The Federalist Papers. We’re dealing with the Anti-Federalist. They’re a bunch of different folks and they didn’t give themselves the name Anti-Federalist. We talked a little bit about that,

1:25 why they’re called the Anti-Federalists, but they were in general opposed to the ratification of the Constitution as it had been sent out to the States. So today we’re looking at The Federal Farmer, and his identity is unknown. Most scholars now think it was Melancton Smith, but others for years thought it may have been Richard Henry Lee.

1:47 Others have even said it’s Robert Yates who is typically seen as the author of Brutus. There’s all these different theories going around. But the important thing here is to understand that this is all taking place. At least these essays are being written and published in the State of New York. That’s important because it’s also where The Federalist Papers were being written. It’s also worth noting that this paper was written in October of 1787.

2:08 So that’s right after the Constitution has been sent out to the States on September 17 of 1787. A month later, less than a month later, you’re getting this Anti-Federalist Papers writing against the Constitution, the proposed Constitution. This paper in particular becomes one that The Federalists take very seriously and they take these arguments to heart

2:29 and they really try to respond to them in The Federalist Papers. I’m not going to go through and try to outline exactly where they respond to the concerns that are put forward in this paper. But if you read them closely, if you go back and check out some of those videos, you can notice sort of like, okay, yeah, they are worried about this thing. They are concerned about the way that these arguments are coming forward, and they’re trying to push back against it, the biggest one being

2:52 the consolidation of the government into a single national government. And that’s something we’re going to talk a lot about today. That’s one of the big things that the Federal Farmer is worried about. So again, we’re talking about New York Gratification debates. And if you want to take a look at this map, it’s pretty interesting. This is a map of the state of New York about the time of the Ratification debate. So I thought it was pretty fun.

3:14 If you are interested in more visual primary sources like this one, check out my colleague Mary’s Show. It’s BRIdge From the Past. They look at all kinds of different visual primary sources. If you enjoy checking out that map, you’ll really enjoy her channel. So go ahead and check it out. All right, so Federal farmer starts out here and here he’s outlining. This is his first paper, again in October of 1787. This is right at the beginning of these ratification debates,

3:36 debating over whether or not we’re going to adopt this new Constitution. And so he outlined sort of what he’s going to do here, and he’s establishing his own credos, saying, my letters to you last winter on the subject of a well-balanced national government for the United States was a result of a free inquiry. He’s thinking about this. He’s been thinking about it for a long time. And what he goes on to say here is

3:58 really important because he’s setting up, if you remember, back First Federalist. There’s something similar going on. And I’ll link to the First Federalist video here. But what they’re trying to do is outline for the people who are reading these the importance of the decision that they’re engaging in and the opportunity that they have to make this choice. Just saying he feels anxious, right? He’s got these anxious things. He’s got these anxieties about what this

4:18 is going to mean to adopt a new government, right? And now he says the plan proposed, it appears to be a plan retaining some federal features, but to be the first important step and aim strongly at one consolidated government. So this is going to be a theme we’re going to turn back to. So what he’s saying here is, look, it’s important that we look at this. There are reasons that we’re contemplating

4:39 this new Constitution, and we’re anxious about that. We want to get it right. But this plan, as he sees it being proposed, even though it looks like it’s going to be this balanced plan, we’ve got to be worried about, or at least take a look at whether or not it’s going to lead to the consolidation. Meaning that coming together in one single national government in getting rid of any state or local governments,

5:00 just having this one government, that’s something that he’s concerned about. And one thing I want to point out for you. He says, my uniform Federal attachments in the interest I have in the protection of property and the a steady examination of laws will convince you that I am under any bias at all. It is in favor of any general system which shall promise those advantages. So interesting, earlier I mentioned the Anti-Federalist versus The Federalist.

5:23 What’s up with the name? Here he’s saying my uniform Federal attachments. Well, what’s going on there is that The Federalists were the best marketers, if you want to think about it that way, of the group, they called themselves The Federalist because they wanted to really reinforce the fact that they were not creating what the Federal farmer here is accusing them of creating, which is a single consolidated national government.

5:44 They wanted to reinforce that this is a federal system that they’re creating. It is a national government that is over a federal system, meaning that the individual states are still going to retain their powers and that local government is still going to exist under the system. That was really important to them. Not only that they were pushing that, but also that people felt that the system that they were proposing was going

6:06 to advocate for that kind of a thing because they knew that it was important for people to feel a local attachment to their government. If you look at the entirety of the Federalist system, what Madison and Hamilton and Jay are arguing they have developed is sort of this hybrid model that allows for the benefits of having a stronger national government that is

6:28 energetic and able to deal with the issues of the day while also retaining the closeness that is required within a republican form of government. This idea of a republican form of government was something that both sides wanted. Both sides are concerned about preserving that kind of republican form of government. But where they differ is on whether or not this new system is going to allow for that to happen.

6:49 Here, federal farmers are saying, no, it’s not, and we have to be careful about it because I am attached to this idea of a federal system where we have this local control and what this system that this proposal is going to do, or at least it looks like to him is going to do, is create this consolidated national government. All right, and I should mention too, and we’ll link here to my video about

7:10 Brutus One, which is another anti Federalist paper there I go through all these different words that they use for Federal and cutting federal and confederation and sort of what all those names? So check out that video. Also if you’re curious when I’m talking about the words like energy, that’s something that the Federalists talked a lot about when they’re writing about the Executive. So we’ll link to the Federal Papers that I’ve talked about, that word in particular,

7:32 so I can explain a little bit better in those videos what we’re talking about. So he goes on to say here though, he says a Federal government of some sort is necessary. So again, here we have the quote unquote Anti-Federalist saying that a Federal government is going to be necessary. And then here he details out why it’s going to be necessary and he says we have suffered present to language and whether

7:54 the Confederation was capable or not originally of answering any valuable purposes, it is now, but of little importance. So what’s he setting up here? Here he’s basically saying, look, we had the Confederation, but this new constitution has been proposed. That this new Constitution has been proposed is important and significant. We now have no choice but to talk about,

8:16 deliberate and decide whether or not we’re going to adopt this thing. And so that is what we’re going to need focused on. He said the Constitution is now presented which we may reject or which we may accept without any amendments into which we ought to point our present, direct our exertions to the question. So look, this is what we’re talking about.

8:38 So whether or not the Articles of Confederation were better or other questions, it doesn’t matter. What’s important to us is again in front of us right here and again, this is where we should be thinking about Federalist 1, because in that Publius also says, look, this choice that is before is important and it’s significant and we need to take it seriously and talk about it and debate it.

8:58 So then he goes on to say that he’s going to be open to conviction and always disposed to adopt that which, all things considered, shall appear to me to be of most convenient inhabitants for the community. Because it must be granted that if men hastily and blindly adopt a system of government, that they will hastily and blindly be led to alter or abolish it

9:19 and changes must ensue one after another till the peaceable and better part of the community will grow weary with changes, tumults disorders and be disposed to accept any government, however despotic, and shall promise the stability that shall promise stability and firmness. So what’s he saying here? If we think back to the Declaration of Independence, we’ll be reminded of this idea

9:41 that government should not be changed for light and transient causes, right, the Declaration Independence, and we have a close read about that. You can go check it out too. But there they made a serious point of saying, look, we are not overthrowing the British Crown because of something that was frivolous or small, but these are serious things. And so he says here that if we’re going to change our government,

10:01 it better be for something serious and we better be careful about how we do it because if we change it often that can lead to problems. But he’s also adding a piece of humility here and he says look, I am earnestly open to that idea. And here when we talk about civil discourse, we talk about conversations within communities. This is a good example of that because he’s saying, look, my mind is not close.

10:22 I’m trying to assess this fairly. At least that’s what he’s saying. Whether or not he actually was is an interesting debate to have. But he’s saying look, I am open to this change, but we need to be careful about it and we need to be serious about the way we’re doing it. So here he’s talking to his audience and saying look, let’s look at this, let’s be serious about it, let’s take it seriously and let’s work through it very carefully. And so that is then what he’s going to do?

10:44 So he’s going to do that sort of in two parts. We’re already talking about the consolidation of government. But before he gets to that, which is his sort of main focus, he raises this question. First we have to consider whether or not we actually need to change this thing. Because again, we just talked about we shouldn’t change this for light, transient causes. Should we change it? And his concluding paragraph graph in this he goes through the entire history of the Articles of Confederation,

11:08 why it came about, what led to the convention in Philadelphia and he concludes it with this whenever a clamor. Is raised and idle men get to work. It is highly necessary to examine facts carefully without unreasonably suspecting men of falsehood, to examine and inquire attentively under what impressions they act. It is too often the case in political

11:28 concerns that men state facts not as they are, but as they wish him to be. And almost every man, by calling to mind past scenes, will find this to be true. So he’s saying, look, this is how we got here, this is why this is taking place. Whether or not this is necessarily what we need to do, he’s going to sort of answer that. But what he’s saying here is, look, what matters at the end of the day are

11:51 the facts that are being presented to us in looking at this constitution as it is, because we need to be able to evaluate whether or not it’s going to hold up to obtain the ends that we want, which he already stated was the establishment of a government that’s going to be beneficial to the most amount of people, that’s going to help secure them in their property, when he calls their happiness, which is really their liberty,

12:13 to live their lives without an arbitrary government force sort of directing them. And so he simply says, look, we’re here at this point where we’re talking about making these changes. He says at the present moment discovers a new face in our affairs. Our object has been all along to reform our federal system and to strengthen governments to establish peace, order and justice and community.

12:35 But a new object now presents itself. The plan of government now proposes, evidently calculated totally to change in time our condition as a people. This whole change is happening. We need to take this seriously. He’s just established that and now he’s saying, look, this is a significant change that’s taking place. This isn’t small, this is serious.

12:55 And what he argues that is going to happen is that instead of being 13 republics under a federal head, it is clearly designed to make us one consolidated government. Of this I think I shall fully convince you in my following letters on the subject. This consolidation of the states has been the object of several men in this country for some time past. Whether such a change ever be affected in any manner, whether it can be affected

13:19 without convulsions in civil wars, whether such a change will not totally destroy the liberties of this country, time can only determine. So you’re saying, look, all of these people that have been claiming for the stronger national government, what they’ve wanted from the beginning is consolidation into one national government. That’s what this plan does, regardless of what it says, is his argument.

13:41 And so then he goes on to say, the uneasy and fickle part of the community may be prepared to receive any form of government. Meaning, look, some people are just going to take any government because the one that we have they think isn’t working. But he says that there are people who are considering this carefully and to them we need to take this seriously and think through it, because we shall view the convention with a proper respect and at a time and at the same time that we

14:04 reflect, that will be minimal abilities and integrity in it. We must recollect how disproportionately the democratic and aristocratic parts of the community were represented. Perhaps the judicious friends and opposers of the new Constitution will agree that it is best to let it rely solely on its own merits or be condemned for its own deficits. So again,

14:25 what he’s saying is we’ve got to take this seriously and at the end of the day, what he’s going to do is take it on its own merits. That’s a lot of pretext to say, look, I’m concerned that this is going to become consolidated. I’m going to outline why I’m concerned about that, but I’m going to do it just based off the way that the Constitution is written. So now he’s going to get into what’s going on. He’s going to look at it from a couple of different directions.

14:46 First, he says that, look, the plan appears to be partly federal, but principally, however, calculated ultimately to make the state’s one consolidated government. So again, saying we’re looking at just what the Constitution says. And from his view, although it looks sort of like there is a room for states in here, what he wants to show is that this is going to become a consolidated government. So if it’s going to become a consolidated

15:07 government like he’s arguing now, we need to ask a couple of questions. And he says the first interesting question therefore suggested is how far the states can be consolidated into one entire government on free principles. So if we’re going to consolidate, what’s that going to do? Second, he says in considering this question, extensive objects are to be taken into view and important changes

15:29 of the forms of government to be carefully attended to and all their consequences. The happiness of the people at large may 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 to not be able to enjoy equal happiness and advantages on one government, the consolidation of the states cannot be admitted.

15:50 So a lot to say, look, he doesn’t think that the consolidation is going to be consistent with the ability to maintain a free government and he’s worried that this new system is going to push us toward consolidation and therefore that is going to be a problematic system and so we should vote against this new Constitution.

16:12 So now there’s a lot of text in this paragraph. I’m going to try to cut it as short as possible. So he says a few things here. He says he’s going to divide us into three but there are three questions we need to ask. There are different forms under free government under which the United States may exist as a nation, right? So consolidation isn’t great, so how can the country exist?

16:32 Because he’s already said, look, I’m in favor of a federal government, but how is that going to work? So number one here is distinct republics connected under an exclusive regulator, internal policy or police. This number one is essentially a loose confederation. So it’s similar to what was under the Articles of Confederation. And he’s outlining this idea that like, look sort of a loose grouping of states

16:56 with the national government existing but without coercive powers. That’s option one. Option two says you do away with the federal state governments and form one, consolidate all the states into one entire government. So this is the consolidation, right, with one executive, one judiciary and one legislature consisting of Senators and representatives.

17:16 This is the coming together of what he sees as the consolidated government. This is the other thing you can do that’s going to allow for this federal government to exist. And so this third one he sees as sort of the middle road, right? So this is sort of going to have the national government. But what that looks like is different than what’s being outlined in the Constitution. What it looks like to him is there’s sort of external things that are specifically

17:40 delegated to the national government, say, making treaties with foreign governments, but the internal policies need to be left to the states. That’s how you prevent consolidation. So we think about this, it’s kind of like goldilocks and three bears and he’s looking for that just right kind of a moment. So he goes through and he talks about the problems. Now with all these three systems touching on the first says, we can’t be in favor of it, it’s not going to work.

18:02 So obviously, the nation without coercive and efficient powers to collect strength of it, cannot always be dependent on to answer the purposes of government. Basically, what happened in the Orange Confederation is going to happen again if we don’t have something that’s more strongly binding together. To the second it says complete consolidation, we should carefully consider it and we should figure out whether or not it’s practical.

18:24 If it be impractical, it is a fatal error to model our government, directing our views ultimately to it. So again, let’s think about consolidation. But it’s bad. We all know it’s bad. I’ve talked about how it’s bad. But the third plane is partial consolidation plan. That’s where we want to land on something that is clear and distinct, that these different views of the different governments are going to be separate.

18:45 And that is sort the perfect blending of how we want this all to come together. And if you again think back to the different Federalist Papers that we’ve read, Federalist 51, for example, 10 too, they both kind of touch on the same kind of federal system and try to make the argument that Federal Farmer is making here that this isn’t a consolidated government, it’s not going to lead

19:08 to consolidation, but what it is going to lead to this nice blended model where you have distinct powers given to the federal government and only those powers are given to the federal government. They are listed out for example, in article one, section eight, where they list out sort of the different clauses that Congress has power over. They’re explicitly giving these powers for the federal government to have control

19:28 over and everything else is what is going to be retained by the state. That’s what the federalists are arguing they’re creating here Melancton Smith is saying that’s what we want, but this constitution isn’t going to provide that kind of a system. So he concludes here saying independent of opinions of many great authors and a free elected government cannot be extended over large territories,

19:48 a few restrictions must evince that one government in general legislation alone can never extend equal benefits to all parts of the United States. So here he’s talking about this idea that big republics can’t exist because they don’t represent the people. We just talked about this federalist a before. Publius talks about this argument a little bit. It also comes up in other ways where

20:10 Publius is talking about sort of the ways in which representation is going to overlap within the federal system to combat against this idea and say no, we can extend a republic over this large territory. What Federal Farmer here is arguing is no, you can’t do that, that’s going to be dangerous. Both of them talking about that again is significant because in many ways these are

20:34 the kinds of arguments that are out and around happening in the ratification. These are the things that people are concerned about and this is why Publius is in the federal state is writing about. What he’s writing about not just because the federal farmers are writing about them, but because these are the concerns that people have. Can we have this large government over in extended territory? What’s it going to mean when the federal

20:54 government has more power to coerce states to act in certain ways? These are big questions. And so coming back sort of on our central question what are Federal Farmer’s may concerns? I’ve said it a million times, you’re probably tired of hearing me say it: consolidation. He’s worried that the federal government is going to become consolidated into one single national government and that that is going to overwhelm

21:16 the ability for the government to be controlled by the people. And so then lead to tyranny. He’s also a couple of other concerns that he’s worried that we don’t want to change the government too often or too quickly. So he wants to be careful about how it is we’re going about making these decisions. And he also is questioning because of that principle whether or not this is the right time to make this change?

21:37 Are the problems bad enough that we do need to make a change to the new constitution? So that was a lot. We marched through that really quickly. So thank you for sticking with me. I hope it was useful. As always, feel free to leave a comment or let us know how we can detail more information or provide more of these videos to you. If there’s other documents you want to see us cover or other things you want to see us explore, let us know.

21:58 We’re also on Facebook and Instagram, and we’re always eager to hear from you, so please let us know. Also check out the other shows on our channel. I mentioned BRIdge From the Past earlier, but we also have Scholar Talks with my colleague Tony Williams, who talks to different individuals about significant historical events and different books that are being written, and all kinds of great stuff. So check out both of those.

22:19 I think you’ll really find them useful, enjoyable, and until next time, thank you so much.