Anti-Federalist No. 5

Insights - Antifederalist No. 5 SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND - A CASE IN POINT

The Anti-Federalist Papers did not always serve as direct rebuttals of their Federalist counterparts, but at times they did. Anti-Federalist No. 5 is one such case as it was intended as a direct rebuttal against Federalist No. 5, which was penned by John Jay under the pseudonym Publius. In Federalist No. 5, John Jay offered the historical conjoining of England and Scotland in 1706 as a prime example of the American advantage of joining all of the states together in union under one constitution. Written under the pseudonym An Observer, the author challenged Jay’s perspective on that historical matter. Concerning John Jay’s claims, the author wrote:

A writer, under the signature Publius or The Federalist, No. V, in the Daily Advertiser, and in the New York Packet, with a view of proving the advantages which, he says, will be derived by the states if the new constitution is adopted, has given extracts of a letter from Queen Anne to the Scotch parliament, on the subject of a union between Scotland and England. I would beg leave to remark, that Publius has been very unfortunate in selecting these extracts as a case in point, to convince the people of America of the benefits they would derive from a union, under such a government as would be effected by the new system.[1]

The union between Scotland and England, according to the author, was a poor example to use if Jay wanted to make a case in favor of ratification of the constitution. In fact, according to the author, Federalist No. 5 made a better case for those who opposed ratification of the constitution. The union between Scotland and England, it seems, left much to be desired. He went on to note the issues that were debated in that European setting and how equivalent matters were currently in play in American debates.

The bitter arguments that had taken place in the Scottish parliament in 1706 focused on what Scotland had to gain or lose by joining with England, and many made the case that Scotland would end up surrendering much more in that alliance than they stood to gain. They would clearly be underrepresented in Parliament and would likely be forced to fight England’s enemies, such as France, with whom Scotland had a cordial relationship.

The point was that, just as Scotland realized no advantage from a union with England and arguably ceded far too much in that agreement, the same would be true of the individual states in America if united under a too powerful central government. Continuing to make his point, the author insisted that those Scottish naysayers were correct in their assessment. He then supported his position by claiming that Scotland’s losses in their union with England were the very reason so many people were leaving their Scottish homeland and coming to America – a land of which they knew very little but considered it worth the risk.

It is a certainty, that when the union was the subject of debate in the Scottish legislature, some of their most sensible and disinterested nobles, as well as commoners! (who were not corrupted by English gold), violently opposed the union, and predicted that the people of Scotland would, in fact, derive no advantages from a consolidation of government with England; but, on the contrary, they would bear a great proportion of her debt, and furnish large bodies of men to assist in her wars with France, with whom, before the union, Scotland was at all times on terms of the most cordial amity.[2]

It deserves also to be remembered, that the people of Scotland, in the late war between France and Great Britain, petitioned to have arms and ammunition supplied them by their general government, for their defense, alleging that they were incapable of defending themselves and their property from an invasion unless they were assisted by government. It is a truth that their petitions were disregarded, and reasons were assigned, that it would be dangerous to entrust them with the means of defense, as they would then have it in their power to break the union.[4]

How far these predictions have been verified I believe it will not require much trouble to prove. It must be obvious to everyone, the least acquainted with English history, that since the union of the two nations the great body of the people in Scotland are in a much worse situation now, than they would be, were they a separate nation. This will be fully illustrated by attending to the great emigrations which are made to America. For if the people could have but a common support at home, it is unreasonable to suppose that such large numbers would quit their country, break from the tender ties of kindred and friendship and trust themselves on a dangerous voyage across a vast ocean, to a country of which they can know but very little except by common report.[3]

Not only was Scotland treated inequitably in the union with Great Britain, but there were times when that inequity posed life and death threats to Scotland. In the following quip, it appears that the author alludes to the Seven-Years’ War (1756-1763) between England and France. As that war drifted across the Scottish border, England refused to provide the Scots with weaponry to defend themselves, fearing that it could lead to a Scottish rebellion. A similar situation had occurred in 1708, two years after the union was sealed, as Queen Anne refused to arm the Scots in fear of rebellion.

The author’s point was well-made. If John Jay’s illustration of the England/Scotland union in Federalist No. 5 was the best he had to offer, that did not bode well. It was not an example that exuded promise for the states under the proposed constitution. The author continued, drawing a comparison between Scotland’s inadequate representation in England and the various states’ representation in Washington under the proposed constitution.

The author makes two points in the following closing remarks. First, he accuses John Jay of slight-of-hand, portraying Federalist No. 5 as a document of deception. Jay’s suggestion that people were seeking to develop three or four distinct confederacies consisting of three or four states each was, according to An Observer, misleading. He claims that no one had made such a proposal. What Anti-Federalists wanted, in contrast to what was suggested in Federalist No. 5, was a basic federal government that would stay in its lane and refrain from involving itself in the governance of the individual states.

The primary concern of those who opposed the newly drafted constitution was that the proposed document placed far too much authority in a central government. The author of Anti-Federalist No. 5, under the pseudonym An Observer, was hoping to establish a central government with very limited powers. This is quite similar to Patrick Henry’s stated position in Anti-Federalist No. 4 where he sought to have the union continue under the Articles of Confederation, making only those adjustments necessary to allow the federal government to adequately serve the basic needs of this new nation. Thus, the back-and-forth continues between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

________________________

1. Anti-Federalist No. 5

2. Ibid

3. Ibid

4. Ibid

5. Ibid

6. Ibid

From this representation of the situation of Scotland, surely no one can draw any conclusion that this country would derive happiness or security from a government which would, in reality, give the people but the mere name of being free. For if the representation, stipulated by the constitution, framed by the late convention, be attentively and dispassionately considered, it must be obvious to every disinterested observer (besides many other weighty objections which will present themselves to view), that the number is not, by any means, adequate to the present inhabitants of this extensive continent, much less to those it will contain at a future period.[5]

I observe that the writer above mentioned, takes great pains to show the disadvantages which would result from three or four distinct confederacies of these states. I must confess that I have not seen, in any of the pieces published against the proposed constitution, any thing which gives the most distant idea that their writers are in favor of such governments; but it is clear these objections arise from a consolidation not affording security for the liberties of their country, and from hence it must evidently appear, that the design of Publius, in artfully holding up to public view [the bugbear of] such confederacies, can be with no other intention than wilfully to deceive his fellow citizens. I am confident it must be, and that it is, the sincere wish of every true friend to the United States, that there should be a confederated national government, but that it should be one which would have a control over national and external matters only, and not interfere with the internal regulations and police of the different states in the union. Such a government, while it would give us respectability abroad, would not encroach upon, or subvert our liberties at home.[6]

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