Anti-Federalist No. 2

Insights - Antifederalist No. 2 "WE HAVE BEEN TOLD OF PHANTOMS" This essay is an excerpted from a speech of William Grayson, June 11, 1788, in Jonathan Elliot (ed.),

The author of Anti-Federalist No. 2 is unknown, but it is said that the piece was excerpted from a speech offered by a man by the name of William Grayson. Here the focus is on the unnecessity of writing anew a document to forge the union. The author believed the original Articles of Confederation sufficient to maintain that bond among the states while offering the central government the tools necessary to carry out its limited duties. The arguments given to declare the need for this new constitution were, in the eyes of the author, weak at best. The arguments rested on the claim of threats from foreign adversaries as well as potential conflict between the states themselves. The author stated:

This being the case among ourselves, what dangers were there to be apprehended from foreign nations? It will be easily shown that dangers from that quarter were absolutely imaginary. Was not France friendly? Unequivocally so. She was devising new regulations of commerce for our advantage. Did she harass us with applications for her money? Is it likely that France will quarrel with us? Is it not reasonable to suppose that she will be more desirous than ever to cling, after losing the Dutch republic, to her best ally? How are the Dutch? We owe them money, it is true; and are they not willing that we should owe them more? Mr. [John] Adams applied to them for a new loan to the poor, despised Confederation. They readily granted it. The Dutch have a fellow feeling for us. They were in the same situation with ourselves. I believe that the money which the Dutch borrowed of Henry IV is not yet paid. How did they pass Queen Elizabeth's loan? At a very considerable discount. They took advantage of the weakness and necessities of James I, and made their own terms with that contemptible monarch. Loans from nations are not like loans from private men. Nations lend money, and grant assistance, to one another, from views of national interest-France was willing to pluck the fairest feather out of the British crown. This was her object in aiding us. She will not quarrel with us on pecuniary considerations.

Of course, the world has changed dramatically over the past 250 years, and foreign threats certainly exist. Nonetheless, the argument was made here that there were no real threats from other nations. The U.S. had won her freedom from Great Britain and other nations like the French and the Dutch, who had supported the U.S. in that fight, were truly friendly toward the new nation. Indeed, example after example is given showing how nations should and do interact. The point was that there was no need to bury the states under a central government powerful enough to take on other countries. After all, had we not just defeated England by uniting under the Articles of Confederation? Why, then, should the states surrender authority to a too-powerful federal government?

The Philadelphia convention, it is argued, went far beyond what anyone anticipated. They had drawn up an entirely new constitution rather than simply making some necessary changes to the Articles of Confederation. The author wrote:

In defense of the new constitution, representatives of the Philadelphia convention insisted that the individual states did not really understand the outside dangers they may face without a powerful national government to defend them. In fact, the argument was made that they could even face hostilities from neighboring states. The federal government, it was said, must be capable of repelling any and all adversaries, whether from without or within. Here is the response to that argument.

There are certain modes of governing the people which will succeed. There are others which will not. The idea of consolidation is abhorrent to the people of this country. How were the sentiments of the people before the meeting of the Convention at Philadelphia? They had only one object in view. Their ideas reached no farther than to give the general government the five per centum impost, and the regulation of trade. When it was agitated in Congress, in a committee of the whole, this was all that was asked, or was deemed necessary. Since that period, their views have extended much farther. Horrors have been greatly magnified since the rising of the Convention.

There are two opinions prevailing in the world-the one, that mankind can only be governed by force; the other, that they are capable of freedom and a good government. Under a supposition that mankind can govern themselves, I would recommend that the present Confederation should be amended. Give Congress the regulation of commerce. Infuse new strength and spirit into the state governments; for, when the component parts are strong, it will give energy to the government, although it be otherwise weak....

We are now told by the honorable gentleman (Governor Randolph) that we shall have wars and rumors of wars, that every calamity is to attend us, and that we shall be ruined and disunited forever, unless we adopt this Constitution. Pennsylvania and Maryland are to fall upon us from the north, like the Goths and Vandals of old; the Algerines, whose flat-sided vessels never came farther than Madeira, are to fill the Chesapeake with mighty fleets, and to attack us on our front; the Indians are to invade us with numerous armies on our rear, in order to convert our cleared lands into hunting- grounds; and the Carolinians, from the south, (mounted on alligators, I presume,) are to come and destroy our cornfields, and eat up our little children! These, sir, are the mighty dangers which await us if we reject dangers which are merely imaginary, and ludicrous in the extreme! Are we to be destroyed by Maryland and Pennsylvania? What will democratic states make war for, and how long since have they imbibed a hostile spirit? But the generality are to attack us. Will they attack us after violating their faith in the first Union? Will they not violate their faith if they do not take us into their confederacy? Have they not agreed, by the old Confederation, that the Union shall be perpetual, and that no alteration should take place without the consent of Congress, and the confirmation of the legislatures of every state?

The final argument in Anti-Federalist No. 2 deals with the grand question: Is mankind destined to succumb to the notion that a central government must always bear the mantle of strength/force in order to govern properly or would the strength of the components (the states) provide for better governance? The argument is made that it would serve the states well to give the Congress only those powers necessary to be a facilitator for the states rather than a dominant force.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you enjoyed this article, please encourage your friends to visit us here at constitutionmatters.net where the Constitution really does matter. Also, if you appreciate the articles and insights provided here, feel free to contribute to the cause by clicking below.

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.