Anti-Federalist No. 1

Insights - Antifederalist No. 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION: A DANGEROUS PLAN OF BENEFIT ONLY TO THE "ARISTOCRATICK COMBINATION" From The Boston Gazette and Country Journal, November 26, 1787.

Unlike the Federalist Papers, the identities of the authors of the Anti-Federalist Papers are not fully known. Written under various pseudonyms by assorted authors, the Anti-Federalist Papers sought to challenge what they considered the propaganda-filled Federalist Papers that encouraged ratification of the recently signed U.S. Constitution. According to the Constitution itself, at least nine states (2/3 of the states in existence at the time) must ratify the document for it to officially become the foundational centerpiece of the republic.

Published on November 26, 1787, Anti-Federalist No. 1 is signed with the pseudonym "A Federalist." While authorship is not known absolutely, many historians believe it most reasonable to conclude that it was Samuel Adams who penned this, the first of the Anti-Federalist Papers. A well-known Massachusetts Anti-Federalist, promoter of independence from England, and a leader/participant in the Boston Tea Party, Adams was known for 1) his symbolic and often sardonic use of pseudonyms, 2) his strong advocacy for states’ rights over federal authority, and 3) his insistence that prior to ratification, a Bill of Rights should be included within the framework of the Constitution. Since the document indicates that the author hailed from Massachusetts, Adams’ authorship is a reasonable assumption.

It was not the purpose of Anti-Federalist No. 1 to completely dissuade ratification of the Constitution. The concern was the lack of open debate about the design of the federal government as spelled out in the Constitution. Much of the author's concern focused on the motivations of those who were behind that design, whom he considered an untrustworthy lot. According to the author, the people had been deprived of the open public debate necessary for them to make an educated decision. His argument was that, if this document was truly worthy of acceptance as a foundation for the republic, it surely deserved scrutiny worthy of that honor.

The author’s closing remarks are admittedly a bit curious as he seems to praise some of the very men behind the authorship of the Constitution, stating, “I hope my fellow-citizens will look well to the characters of their preference, and remember the Old Patriots of 75; they have never led them astray, nor need they fear to try them on this momentous occasion.”[6] His reference to “the Old Patriots of 75” points to those who had led the fight for freedom against England. Yet, many of those men were also behind the writing of the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps his point was that he saw changing motivations and sought for these men to return to the honorable inspiration that had driven their cause more than a decade earlier.

Anti-Federalist No. 1 stands as a foundational text in the American political canon, encapsulating the fears and ideals of a significant faction of the early American republic. Its exploration of themes such as power, representation, and civil liberties continues to resonate in contemporary debates about governance. The arguments laid out here serve as a reminder of the delicate balance between governmental authority and the protection of liberty – a tension that remains central to the American political experiment. Consequently, this is not merely a valuable historical document, but an insightful contribution to the ongoing dialogue about power, rights, and the relationship between the government and the governed.

[1] Anti-Federalist No. 1

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

If it is suitable to the GENIUS and HABITS of the citizens of these states, it will bear the strictest scrutiny. The PEOPLE are the grand inquest who have a RIGHT to judge of its merits. The hideous daemon of Aristocracy has hitherto had so much influence as to bar the channels of investigation, preclude the people from inquiry and extinguish every spark of liberal information of its qualities.[1]

Like the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers were penned in what, in modern times, might be considered archaic verbiage. Still, the substance is unmistakable. According to the author, the Constitution was being forced upon a hesitant people. He likened those behind that move to those in Massachusetts who likewise were seeking to form an aristocracy at the state level. He saw in them a desire to develop what he termed a rigid (that is to say, an intolerant and overbearing) government seeking to rule over the citizenry rather than to serve them, much like they had experienced with England in the previous decades.

Those furious zealots who are for cramming it down the throats of the people, without allowing them either time or opportunity to scan or weigh it in the balance of their understandings, bear the same marks in their features as those who have been long wishing to erect an aristocracy in THIS COMMONWEALTH [of Massachusetts]. Their menacing cry is for a RIGID government, it matters little to them of what kind, provided it answers THAT description. As the plan now offered comes something near their wishes, and is the most consonant to their views of any they can hope for, they come boldly forward and DEMAND its adoption. They brand with infamy every man who is not as determined and zealous in its favor as themselves. They cry aloud the whole must be swallowed or none at all, thinking thereby to preclude any amendment; they are afraid of having it abated of its present RIGID aspect.[2]

A vigorous accusation was that the advocates for ratification were open to all kinds of unethical maneuvering to achieve their goal, even to the point of preventing, as much as possible, any debate over the concerns of Anti-Federalists.

They have strived to overawe or seduce printers to stifle and obstruct a free discussion, and have endeavored to hasten it to a decision before the people can duly reflect upon its properties. In order to deceive them, they incessantly declare that none can discover any defect in the system but bankrupts who wish no government, and officers of the present government who fear to lose a part of their power. These zealous partisans may injure their own cause, and endanger the public tranquility by impeding a proper inquiry; the people may suspect the WHOLE to be a dangerous plan, from such COVERED and DESIGNING schemes to enforce it upon them. Compulsive or treacherous measures to establish any government whatever, will always excite jealousy among a free people: better remain single and alone, than blindly adopt whatever a few individuals shall demand, be they ever so wise.[3]

The following words seem to speak rather plainly of Adams’ authorship as the writer insisted that he would rather remain part of a free and independent people in a small domain than to be ruled over by an empire. After all, the Revolutionary War was grounded in the desire to escape such an intolerable government.

I had rather be a free citizen of the small republic of Massachusetts, than an oppressed subject of the great American empire.[4]

Assuming authorship by Samuel Adams, while a Harvard graduate himself, the document strongly suggests a distrust of lawyers. He foresaw a government made of those whose self-interests would guide their path. He saw a build-up of government well beyond what was needed to serve the people. It seems, in retrospect, that the author truly understood the hidden motivations behind some of the signers. Certainly, his observations about the possibility of a bloated government were insightful.

The inundation of abuse that has been thrown out upon the heads of those who have had any doubts of its universal good qualities, have been so redundant, that it may not be improper to scan the characters of its most strenuous advocates. It will first be allowed that many undesigning citizens may wish its adoption from the best motives, but these are modest and silent, when compared to the greater number, who endeavor to suppress all attempts for investigation. These violent partisans are for having the people gulp down the gilded pill blindfolded, whole, and without any qualification whatever…the Lawyers in particular, keep up an incessant declamation for its adoption; like greedy gudgeons they long to satiate their voracious stomachs with the golden bait. The numerous tribunals to be erected by the new plan of consolidated empire, will find employment for ten times their present numbers; these are the LOAVES AND FISHES for which they hunger.[5]

This book will truly enhance your understanding of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Click the button below to check it out.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Feel free to visit restoretheword.com

Contact

Questions? Reach out anytime.

Email:

contact@constitutionmatters.net

© 2025. All rights reserved.