Anti-Federalist No. 3

Insights – Antifederalist No. 3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT; WILL NOT ABATE FOREIGN INFLUENCE; DANGERS OF CIVIL WAR AND DESPOTISM

The identity of the author of Anti-Federalist 3 is unknown. Just as the authors of the Federalist Papers wrote under the pseudonym Publius, this author chose the label A Farmer as a matter of concealing his identity. Whether that pseudonym was a matter of occupation or mindset is unknown. This specific essay was published in the Maryland Gazette and the Baltimore Advertiser on March 7, 1788.

This author first addresses what he sees as a confusion of terms by the writers of the Federalist Papers, particularly where the word Federalist is concerned. Federalism is a term that indicates a hierarchy of authority and it was the form of government the founders purportedly set about to develop here in America. Under federalism, the states would be considered autonomous units designed to govern themselves with the federal government serving as a facilitator for the union of states rather than an authority.

The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.[1]

While the proponents of ratification of the Constitution called themselves Federalists, and their writings were deemed the Federalist Papers, the author considers that a misnomer. In his eyes, those men who defended the proposed Constitution were anything but Federalists. Instead, they sought to install a federal government that would lord over the states. While the opponents referred to themselves as Anti-Federalists, they assumed that name only to demonstrate their opposition to the positions of those using the label Federalists. In this author’s eye, Anti-Federalists were the ones actually defending federalist principles.

The United States was faced with a simple, yet difficult question: What kind of nation do we want to be? The Federalists argued that this should be a nation of strength unrivaled on the world stage, and that this could only happen with a federal government that was able to take the reins and direct the course we would travel. Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, preferred to live a life of peace and quiet, undeterred by the ambitions of men in federal positions.

Vanity is often seen as a shortcoming in a person’s character. It is a trait that often leads to poor decision-making and serves as a disruptor of relationships. According to the author, if this is true of individuals, how much more disruptive is national vanity when it comes to international political relationships? In fact, he makes a point concerning the war for independence. Now that the United States had secured independence from England, some seemed offended that Europe had put the United States in its rear-view mirror and moved on. They did not like the idea of being insignificant, and this was part of what drove their ambition for a powerful federal government with an important role to play on the world stage.

Whether any form of national government is preferable for the Americans, to a league or confederacy, is a previous question we must first make up our minds upon....That a national government will add to the dignity and increase the splendor of the United States abroad, can admit of no doubt: it is essentially requisite for both. That it will render government, and officers of government, more dignified at home is equally certain. That these objects are more suited to the manners, if not [the] genius and disposition of our people is, I fear, also true. That it is requisite in order to keep us at peace among ourselves, is doubtful. That it is necessary, to prevent foreigners from dividing us, or interfering in our government, I deny positively; and, after all, I have strong doubts whether all its advantages are not more specious than solid.[2]

That the people are not at present disposed for, and are actually incapable of, governments of simplicity and equal rights, I can no longer doubt. But whose fault is it? We make them bad, by bad governments, and then abuse and despise them for being so. Our people are capable of being made anything that human nature was or is capable of, if we would only have a little patience and give them good and wholesome institutions; but I see none such and very little prospect of such.[4]

We are vain, like other nations. We wish to make a noise in the world; and feel hurt that Europeans are not so attentive to America in peace, as they were to America in war. We are also, no doubt, desirous of cutting a figure in history. Should we not reflect, that quiet is happiness? That content and pomp are incompatible? I have either read or heard this truth, which the Americans should never forget: That the silence of historians is the surest record of the happiness of a people.[3]

This begs the question: Are the people of the individual states capable of governing themselves in quiet solitude, or are they, like sheep, unable to know what path to follow without a shepherd’s voice to direct them?

Unfortunately, the people had become accustomed to following the voice. Even under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government had become a relatively powerful force, and much of the citizenry were willing to surrender freedoms for the surety of governmental guidance. Still, the author argues that perhaps the people ought to be given the opportunity to try self-governance and the independence it offers. Then again, the people may very well fail at self-governance in which case, the role would inevitably rest upon those few, like the Federalists, who seek that kind of power.

If the body of the people will not govern themselves, and govern themselves well too, the consequence is unavoidable-a FEW will, and must govern them. Then it is that government becomes truly a government by force only, where men relinquish part of their natural rights to secure the rest, instead of an union of will and force, to protect all their natural rights, which ought to be the foundation of every rightful social compact.[5]

An issue often raised by those who penned the Federalist Papers was concern over potential disputes and wrangling between the various members of the union without a strong federal government to keep the states united under one national umbrella. To that, the author responded:

I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted-as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation.[6]

His response seems reasonable. The states would be bonded together out of unified self-interest. As reasonable men, they did not need a federal government to baby-sit them as they were capable of interacting amicably as equals. However, a dispute between a state and a national government would be far more likely to take on an adversarial and even hostile tone since a federal government would consider itself superior to the states.

Did the Federalists have a legitimate argument that a strong federal government would be a stronger deterrent where intervention from foreign nations is concerned? According to the author of Anti-Federalist No. 3, that was simply a straw man position. In fact, his point is that the exact opposite is true.

That a national government will prevent the influence or danger of foreign intrigue, or secure us from invasion, is in my judgment directly the reverse of the truth...The facility of corruption is increased in proportion as power tends by representation or delegation, to a concentration in the hands of a few. . .As to any nation attacking a number of confederated independent republics…it is not to be expected, more especially as the wealth of the empire is there universally diffused, and will not be collected into any one overgrown, luxurious and effeminate capital to become a lure to the enterprizing ambitious.[7]

The author’s point is that a strong federal government is more likely to attract the attention of foreign entities as opposed to a number of smaller individual states living in peaceful harmony, seeking no one’s attention or harm. Besides, individual states would not be so tempting for foreign enterprisers since the potential gains from a single state would not be worth the effort.

________________________

1] Anti-Federalist No. 3

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid

------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.