The Federal Farmer in the First Congress
The Federal Farmer / Elbridge Gerry Authorship Thesis
(Uncovering the Federal Farmer – Part 7)
In August of 1789 the first federal Congress debated the proposed Constitutional amendments which would eventually become the Bill of Rights. When considering an early draft of the First Amendment, Massachusetts Representative Theodore Sedgwick moved to strike the right of freedom of assembly. Sedgwick argued that enumerating a right of assembly was unnecessary minutia. When people freely converse, he reasoned, they necessarily assemble. According to Sedgwick, it was similarly unnecessary to declare that citizens have a right to wear a hat or go to sleep when they please. Elbridge Gerry disagreed, asserting that freedom of assembly was “an essential right.” Gerry insisted that the people “ought to be secure in the peaceable enjoyment of this privilege and that can only be done by making a declaration to that effect in the Constitution.”[1] According to Gerry’s biographer, “this key phrase was kept in the Constitution – in part as the result of Gerry’s arguments.”[2]
The Federal Farmer consistently and repeatedly argued that Constitutional amendments were “essential and necessary.”[3] “As to the principal defects” in the Constitution, the Federal Farmer identified “the insecurity of some essential rights” and the “want of a more perfect bill of rights.”[4] Federal Farmer No. 6 suggested a list of “unalienable and fundamental rights.” After identifying the rights of an accused and the right not to be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, the Federal Farmer indicated that “[t]he people have a right to assemble in an orderly manner, and petition the government for a redress of wrongs,” among other rights. This is only one example of the through line connecting Gerry’s position at the Constitutional Convention, the Federal Farmer, and Gerry’s arguments in the first federal Congress.
As a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, during the ratification campaign in 1787-1788, and as a member of Congress in 1789 Gerry had been making the same familiar arguments. During the final week of the Constitutional Convention Gerry unsuccessfully moved for a committee to prepare a Bill of Rights.[5] Undeterred, two days later, Gerry moved to insert a declaration that “the liberty of the press should be inviolably observed.’’[6] On the final day of the Constitutional Convention Gerry was one of only three remaining delegates who refused to sign the Constitution on September 17. In October Gerry explained to the Massachusetts legislature the reasons why he dissented from the Constitution. Among his principal objections, Gerry specified that the liberties of America were not secured and “the system is without the security of a bill of rights.”[7]
The first federal Congress was likely bittersweet for Gerry. Although Congress proposed a bill of rights for ratification by the states, it did not contain all of the amendments Gerry would have preferred. Nevertheless, the Congressional record provides abundant examples connecting Congressman Gerry and the Federal Farmer, including:
- Gerry successfully convincing the House to retain freedom of assembly in the First Amendment;
- Gerry successfully objecting to the word “national” in the First Amendment;
- Gerry’s successfully reinserting the phrase “unreasonable seizures and searches” into the Fourth Amendment;
- Gerry’s unsuccessful effort to add the word “expressly” into the 10th Amendment;
- Gerry’s advocacy for expanding the size of the House of Representatives;
- Gerry’s effort to protect and secure revenue for the states;
- Gerry’s efforts to strengthen militias as an alternative to a standing army;
- Gerry’s lamenting the evils and miseries of slavery;
- Gerry’s efforts to promote separation of powers.
This blog post, Uncovering the Federal Farmer (Part 7), is the seventh installment of a multi-part series attempting to demystify the Federal Farmer. Part 1 revealed an unpublished and undated manuscript by Elbridge Gerry which sheds new light on his identity as the Federal Farmer. Part 2 explores Gerry’s background and examines the historiography of the Federal Farmer, long believed to have been Richard Henry Lee. Part 3 provides an overview of the mounting evidence supporting John Kaminski’s attribution that Elbridge Gerry was the Federal Farmer, not Melancton Smith as commonly assumed by 20th century historians.
Part 4 takes a deep dive into archival evidence and the historic record summarized in Part 3, including the fact that the Federal Farmer consistently grounded his arguments with examples from Massachusetts. Part 5 identifies signature phrases used by Elbridge Gerry and the Federal Farmer, which are analogous to linguistic “fingerprints.”
Part 6 presents additional evidence in support of the Federal Farmer – Elbridge Gerry Authorship Thesis (FEAT). In 1998 John P. Kaminski posited that “all of the positions taken by the Federal Farmer appear perfectly consistent with Gerry’s stance at the Constitutional Convention.”[8] Part 6 demonstrates that the Federal Farmer’s underlying arguments and reasoning aligns with Gerry’s public positions.
Part 7 continues with a discussion of “Gerry’s endgame,” the adoption of constitutional amendments, which further illustrate Gerry’s identity as the Federal Farmer. For example, neither Gerry nor the Federal Farmer wanted to rush the adoption of constitutional amendments. Rather, as a member of the first federal Congress, Gerry supported the adoption of essential legislation necessary to establish a working federal government, before proceeding with a robust and transparent amendment process.[9]
While no single piece of evidence is alone conclusive, it is believed that the combined weight of the mutually reinforcing attribution evidence is striking. It is anticipated that independent scholarly review of the FEAT Thesis will support the conclusion that Kaminski’s attribution is now settled. In other words, the goal of this exercise is put to rest “by far the most controversial and long-lived debate”[10] over the authorship of a pseudonymous essay.
A discussion of the Federal Farmer would not be complete without a discussion of Melancton Smith. Part 8 (pending) builds on Kaminski’s suggestion that Smith was the Republican to whom the letters of the Federal Farmer were addressed, not the author of the Federal Farmer letters. This is not to say that Melancton Smith wasn’t busy during the ratification campaign. Smith deserves recognition as the author of Brutus and Plebeian.
Gerry’s endgame
James Madison is widely regarded as the primary draftsman and leading advocate for the Bill of Rights. Ironically, Madison opposed a bill of rights at the Constitutional Convention. When campaigning for election to the first federal Congress, Madison faced stiff Antifederalist opposition. As a practical politician, Madison promised that if elected he would support constitutional amendments. After Madison became the majority leader of the House in March of 1789, he led the fight for amendments, as promised.
When the first federal Congress convened in March of 1789, Gerry no doubt looked forward to the adoption of a bill of rights. Nonetheless, when Madison submitted his proposed amendments on June 8th, Gerry sought to delay the matter.[11]Despite their mutual goal of securing a bill of rights, Gerry consistently voted against Madison’s amendments.[12] Gerry also led the opposition to Madison’s amendments. Why?
Gerry objected when Madison wanted to “satisfy the public,” advance his amendments, and refer the proposed amendments to a select committee.[13] While it is true that Gerry repeatedly voted against Madison’s proposals and sought to postpone debates on the Bill of Rights during the first federal Congress, his reasons for doing so perfectly align with the objectives of the Federal Farmer. As described by Gerry on June 8th:
I consider it improper to take up this business at this time, when our attention is occupied by other important objects: We should dispatch the subjects now on the table, and let this lie over until a period of more leisure for discussion and attention. The gentleman from Virginia says it is necessary to go into a consideration of this subject, in order to satisfy the people. For my part I cannot be of his opinion. The people know we are employed in the organization of the government, and cannot expect that we should forego this business for any other.[14]
During a lengthy speech on June 8th, Gerry made clear that he was not against the consideration of amendments “when the proper time arrives.” Gerry also clarified that he would be “glad to set about it as soon as possible,” after the higher priority issues were addressed. Gerry expressed his goal of “due deliberation” in making laws and dealing “fairly and candidly” with constituents. Thus, Gerry proposed to “give the subject a full discussion” after the ship of state had been put in motion.[15] As explained by Billias:
Time and again he deferred debate on a bill of rights to a “time of greater leisure than the present.” Such moves were not stalling tactics, however. They reflected his profound concern of what would happen if the government was not organized and operating.[16]
Gerry objected to sending Madison’s recommended amendments to a select committee.[17] Rather than allowing Madison to screen the amendments[18] proposed by the states, Gerry argued that the entire House should “candidlyconsider” all amendments. Doing otherwise was “disrespectful” to the states that proposed amendments. Referring the subject to a committee, Gerry asserted, would not satisfy their constituents since it was merely an attempt to “amuse them with trifles.”
Gerry also explained the benefits of considering all of the amendments proposed by the state conventions in a timely manner. For Gerry, adoption of a bill of rights would preempt states from calling a second Constitutional Convention.[19]Moreover, early adoption of a bill of rights would help gain the confidence of the two states which had yet to join the union, North Carolina and Rhode Island.
Gerry expressed his opinion that several state ratification conventions would never have voted to ratify if they had not been assured that their objections would have been “duly attend[ed] to by Congress.” Emphasizing the point, Gerry explained his belief that “many members of these conventions would never have voted” to ratify if they had not been persuaded that Congress would act with “candor and attention” to this important matter. Gerry ended his speech by indicating that all of the amendments proposed by the state conventions should be permitted to “stand or fall on their own merits.”[20] These sentiments align with a recurring theme of the Federal Farmer, who similarly advocated for “candidand thorough examination”[21] whereby the Constitution would be permitted to rest on its “own merits.”[22]
In preparing his speech for June 8, Gerry might have referred to his copy of the Federal Farmer. If he had, he would have seen that Federal Farmer No. 5 indicated that the “field of enquiry was just opened” and that the nation was entitled to “honest and faithful government” which would “coolly and deliberately” examine “every article, clause and word”:
- This subject of consolidating the states is new; and because forty or fifty men have agreed in a system, to suppose the good sense of this country, an enlightened nation, must adopt it without examination, and though in a state of profound peace, without endeavouring to amend those parts they perceive are defective, dangerous to freedom, and destructive of the valuable principles of republican government—is truly humiliating.
- I consider the field of enquiry just opened, and that we are to look to the state conventions for ultimate decisions on the subject before us…
- To say that these conventions ought not to attempt, coolly and deliberately, the revision of the system, or that they cannot amend it, is very foolish or very assuming. If these conventions, after examining the system, adopt it, I shall be perfectly satisfied, and wish to see men make the administration of the government an equal blessings to all orders of men.
- Our countrymen are entitled to an honest and faithful government.
- In every point of view. therefore, in which I have been able, as yet, to contemplate this subject, I can discern but one rational mode of proceeding relative to it: and that is to examine it with freedom and candour, to have state conventions some months hence, which shall examine coolly every article, clause, and word in the system proposed, and to adopt it with such amendments as they shall think fit.
In seeking to delay consideration of Madison’s abbreviated list of amendments, Gerry may also have remembered that the timing of amendments was a matter of small importance. The Federal Farmer didn’t claim to have all the answers. Rather, the Federal Farmer proposed a deliberative process during the ratification campaign:
- It is a matter of small importance, whether these amendments precede or succeed the adoption of the constitution, so that they be made.[23]
- Three states have now adopted the constitution without amendments; these, and other circumstances, ought to have their weight in deciding the question, whether we will put the system into operation, adopt it, enumerate and recommend the necessary amendments, which afterwards, by three-fourths of the states, may be ingrafted into the system, or whether we will make the amendments prior to the adoption—I only undertake to shew amendments are essential and necessary—how far it is practicable to ingraft them into the plan, prior to the adoption, the state conventions must determine.
On July 21, Gerry expressed his indignation that a broader list of amendments was not being considered by the full House. Madison sought to steer clear of amendments of a “doubtful nature” and focused on individual rights-based amendments.[24] Gerry indicated that he was “duty bound” to press recommended amendments until they were “maturely considered by Congress,” which should not “smother the business, or prevent a full investigation.”[25] For Gerry, due deliberation could not take place behind closed doors:
But what is that was said respecting a public discussion? Are gentlemen afraid to meet the public ear on this topic? Do they wish to shut the gallery doors? Perhaps nothing would be attended with more dangerous consequences.—No, sir, let us not be afraid of full and public investigation; let our means, like our conclusions, be justified; let our constituents see, hear, and judge for themselves.[26]
For the same reasons, Gerry proposed a further delay on August 13. He thought “the discussion would take up more time than the house could now spare; he was therefore in favor of postponing” the consideration of amendments. Gerry also objected that “it was absurd to suppose that the members were obliged to confine their deliberations” solely to the report of Madison’s committee. Gerry embraced a deliberative process even though it would “inevitably produce a more copious debate” than what Madison contemplated.[27] Gerry successfully moved for 100 copies of the draft amendments to be printed for review of all of the members.[28]
In effect, Gerry became the “chief spokesman for those who opposed the proposed constitutional amendments because they did not go far enough.”[29] With Gerry outvoted at every step of the truncated process, Madison’s committee reported seventeen amendments. The list was further refined and reduced to twelve by the Senate. By joint resolution of Congress in September, twelve proposed amendments were sent to the states for ratification. Articles three through twelve were ratified and became the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791.
Gerry’s record at the first federal Congress aligns with the Federal Farmer
Gerry’s identity as the Federal Farmer is further evidenced by the consistent positions that Gerry took as a member of the first federal Congress, as reflected in his motions, speeches and correspondence. Although Gerry did not succeed in proposing additional amendments beyond the original list submitted by Madison, Gerry meaningfully contributed to the debate over the proposed amendments. As indicated above, he was able to convince the House to retain freedom of assembly in what became the First Amendment. Other examples connecting Congressman Gerry and the Federal Farmer include: (i) Gerry’s advocacy for expanding the size of the House of Representatives; (ii) Gerry’s effort to add the word “expressly” into the 10th Amendment, (iii) Gerry’s objection to including the word “national” in the First Amendment, (iv) Gerry’s successfully reinserting the phrase “unreasonable seizures and searches” into the Fourth Amendment, (v) Gerry’s effort to protect and secure revenue for the states, (vi) Gerry’s efforts to strengthen militias as an alternative to a standing army, (vii) Gerry’s lamenting the evils and miseries of slavery, and (viii) Gerry’s efforts to promote separation of powers.
Adequacy of the Representation in the House
Gerry’s record in Congress perfectly aligns with the Federal Farmer. In particular, Gerry proposed to expand the House of Representatives to 200 members. Gerry’s avowed goal was to “secure an adequate representation,”[30] one of the primary objectives of the Federal Farmer. Among other examples, Federal Farmer No. 6 identified the “smallness of the representation” as one of the “principal defects” in the Constitution.” Federal Farmer No. 7 reiterated that his principal position that “there is no substantial representation” of the people. Federal Farmer No. 9 repeated that he wanted to increase the representation “very considerably,” “to double it as least.”
In a debate on August 14, Congressman Gerry rejected the argument that “multiplying the number of representatives” would diminish the dignity and importance of the House. Gerry asked: “Will that gentleman pretend to say we have as much security in a few representatives as in many? Certainly he will not. Not that I would insist upon a burthensome representation, but upon an adequate one.”[31]
Aligned with the Federal Farmer, Gerry consistently made it clear that he favored a “more numerous representation.”[32]Putting a marker on the table, Gerry “[e]xpressed himself in favour of extending the number to two hundred, and wished that the amendment might be so modified as to insure an increase in proportion to the increase of population.”[33]Although Gerry did not succeed in dramatically expanding the House from 65 to 200 members, Congress did agree to propose a slightly larger 100-member House which would eventually expand to 200 members with population growth.[34]
Copied below is the proposed article which would have become the First Amendment if ratified by the states in 1791:
Article the first. After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
Gerry’s effort to insert the word “expressly” into the 10th Amendment
When the House considered what would become the 10th Amendment, Gerry proposed to insert the word “expressly” as a limitation on federal power. Doing so was consistent with the Federal Farmer’s objective of preserving states rights and autonomy against a consolidating federal government. Doing so would have been in keeping with the Articles of Confederation which limited Congress to only those powers that were “expressly enumerated.”[35]
On August 21 Gerry explained his request to amend the 9th proposition (which would become the 10th Amendment) as follows:
The ninth proposition MR. GERRY proposed to amend by inserting the word “expressly,” so as to read “the powers not expressly delegated by the constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”[36]
Emphasizing the importance of this proposal, Gerry requested that the “yeas and nays” should be recorded for the record. “As he thought this an amendment of great importance, he requested the yeas and nays might be taken. He was supported in this by one-fifth of the members present; whereupon they were taken.”
The Federal Farmer surely would have agreed with this recommendation by Gerry. Federal Farmer Nos. 4, 6 and 9, for example, observed that:
- It is said, that when the people make a constitution, and delegate powers, that all powers not delegated by them to those who govern, is reserved in the people; and that the people, in the present case, have reserved in themselves, and in there state governments, every right and power not expressly given by the federal constitution to those who shall administer the national government. It is said, on the other hand, that the people, when they make a constitution, yield all power not expressly reserved to themselves. The truth is, in either case, it is mere matter of opinion, and men usually take either side of the argument, as will best answer their purposes: But the general presumption being, that men who govern, will, in doubtful cases, construe laws and constitutions most favourably for encreasing their own powers; all wise and prudent people, in forming constitutions, have drawn the line, and carefully described the powers parted with and the powers reserved. By the state constitutions, certain rights have been reserved in the people; or rather, they have been recognized and established in such a manner, that state legislatures are bound to respect them, and to make no laws infringing upon them. (FF4)
- The supreme power is in the people, and rulers possess only that portion which is expressly given them; yet the wisest people have often declared this is the case on proper occasions, and have carefully formed stipulations to fix the extent, and limit the exercise of the power given. (FF6)
- The confederation is a league of friendship among the states or sovereignties for the common defence and mutual welfare—Each state expressly retains its sovereignty, and all powers not expressly given to congress. (FF6)
- The supreme power is undoubtedly in the people, and it is a principle well established in my mind, that they reserve all powers not expressly delegated by them to those who govern; this is as true in forming a state as in forming a federal government. (FF16)
- [W]e ought either carefully to enumerate the rights reserved, or be totally silent about them; we must either particularly enumerate both, or else suppose the particular enumeration of the powers given adequately draws the line between them and the rights reserved, particularly to enumerate the former and not the latter, I think most advisable: however, as men appear generally to have their doubts about these silent reservations, we might advantageously enumerate the powers given, and then in general words, according to the mode adopted in the 2d art. of the confederation, declare all powers, rights and privileges, are reserved, which are not explicitly and expressly given up. People, and very wisely too, like to be express and explicit about their essential rights, and not to be forced to claim them on the precarious and unascertained tenure of inferences and general principles, knowing that in any controversy between them and their rulers, concerning those rights, disputes may be endless, and nothing certain:—But admitting, on the general principle, that all rights are reserved of course, which are not expressly surrendered, the people could with sufficient certainty assert their rights on all occasions, and establish them with ease, still there are infinite advantages in particularly enumerating many of the most essential rights reserved in all cases; and as to the less important ones, we may declare in general terms, that all not expressly surrendered are reserved. (FF16)
Constitutional scholars and historians have noted the profound implications of the omission of the word “expressly” from the Tenth Amendment. As recognized by Merrill Jensen, the single word expressly was a crucial distinction at the heart of the difference between the Articles of Confederation and the new Constitution.[37] Click here for a link to the CSAC blog about “The Most Important Word Not in the Constitution.” Both the Federal Farmer and Gerry understood the implications.
Gerry objection to including the word “national” in the First Amendment
On August 15 Congress debated the wording of what would become the First Amendment. Madison explained that some of the state conventions expressed the concern that the necessary and proper clause would enable Congress to establish a national religion.[38] Madison suggested that the draft could be clarified by adding the word “national”:
[I]f the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform; he thought if the word national was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.[39]
Gerry did not like what he heard. He explained that the use of the word “national” was problematic language of consolidation, prompting Madison to withdraw his motion:
[Gerry] Did not like the term national, proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, and he hoped it would not be adopted by the house….it had been insisted upon by those who were called antifederalists; that this form of government consolidated the union; the honorable gentleman’s motion shews, that he considers it in the same light….[40]
Immediately following Gerry’s comment, Madison “withdrew his motion, but observed that the words ‘no national religion shall be established by law,’ did not imply that the government was a national one.”[41] This was a small victory for Gerry in an uphill battle against Madison and the Federalists.
Unreasonable searches and seizures
When the future Fourth Amendment was debated Gerry notched an important victory which aligns with the Federal Farmer. On August 17 Gerry noticed that the original phrasing that Madison had proposed had been dropped by the select committee. Gerry moved to reinsert the full clause protecting the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects “against unreasonable seizures and searches” as follows:
Said [Gerry] he presumed there was a mistake in the wording of this clause, it ought to be ‘‘the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable seizures and searches,’’ and therefore moved that amendment.[42]
Gerry’s amendment was adopted without further discussion. Not surprisingly, a prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures was repeatedly identified by the Federal Farmer as an essential right.
- “There are other essential rights, which we have justly understood to be the rights of freemen; as freedom from hasty and unreasonable search warrants, warrants not founded on oath, and not issued with due caution, for searching and seizing men’s papers, property, and persons.” (FF4)
- “No man is held to answer a crime charged upon him till it be substantially described to him; and he is subject to no unreasonable searches or seizures of his person, papers or effects.” (FF6)[43]
- “[T]hat all persons shall have a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, houses, papers, or possessions; and that all warrants shall be deemed contrary to this right, if the foundation of them be not previously supported by oath, and there be not in them a special designation of persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure.” (FF16)[44]
Gerry’s effort to secure revenue for the states
In Philadelphia, Gerry expressed his concern that consolidation under the proposed Constitution ran the risk of annihilating the states. In Gerry’s very first speech on May 30, 1787, he questioned whether the Constitutional Convention had the authority[45] to effectively “annihilate the confederation.”[46] Federal Farmer No. 1 supported “amending,” not “destroying” the confederation. These same concerns were expressed by Congressman Gerry who sought to preserve independent sources of revenue for the states.
As discussed in Part 6, multiple sources confirm that Gerry repeatedly worried that the proposed Constitution ran the risk of annihilating/destroying the state governments. In addition to Gerry’s May 30 speech, Yates, Paterson and Martin similarly quote Gerry describing the risk of annihilating the states.
The Federal Farmer No. 2, for example, shared the same concerns:
The general government will consist of a new species of executive, a small senate, and a very small house of representatives. As many citizens will be more than three hundred miles from the seat of this government as will be nearer to it, its judges and officers cannot be very numerous, without making our government very expensive. Thus will stand the state and the general governments, should the constitution be adopted without any alterations in their organization: but as to powers, the general government will possess all essential ones, at least on paper, and those of the states a mere shadow of power. And therefore, unless the people shall make some great exertions to restore to the state governments their powers in matters of internal police; as the powers to lay and collect, exclusively, internal taxes, to govern the militia, and to hold the decisions of their own judicial courts upon their own laws final, the balance cannot possibly continue long; but the state governments must be annihilated, or continue to exist for no purpose. (FF2)
In debates on August 22, Gerry sought to secure revenue for the states.[47] Gerry worried that “the existence of the states” was at risk if all taxing authority was relinquished to the federal government. It was necessary, Gerry believed, to leave revenue to enable the states “to support themselves”:
[Mr. Gerry] Thought if the proposition was referred, that it ought to go to a committee of the whole, for he wished it to have a full and candid discussion. He would have something left in the power of every state to support itself independent of the United States, and therefore was not satisfied with the amendment proposed. The constitution in its original state gives to congress the power of levying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts and excise, the fault here is, that every thing is relinquished to the general government. Now the amendments give the same power with qualification, that there shall have been a previous requisition. This by no means came up to his idea; he thought that some particular revenue ought to be secured to the states so as to enable them to support themselves.
He apprehended when this clause in the constitution was under the consideration of the several state conventions, they would not so readily have ratified it, if they had considered it more fully in the point of view, he had now placed it, but if they had ratified it, it would have been under a conviction that congress would admit such amendments as were necessary to the existence of the state governments. At present the states are divested of every means to support themselves; if they discover a new source of revenue, after congress shall have diverted all the old ones into their treasury, the rapacity of the general government can take that from them also. The states can have recourse to no tax, duty, impost or excise but what may be taken from them whenever the congress shall be so disposed, and yet gentlemen will say that the annihilation of the state governments must be followed by the ruin of this.[48]
In this instance, Gerry’s efforts were not successful. Nevertheless, Gerry’s objectives involving the power of the purse and state rights were entirely consistent with the concerns of the Federal Farmer.
Efforts to strengthen militia v. standing army
Gerry and the Federal Farmer were also concerned about the power of the sword. Gerry was a longstanding opponent of standing armies, preferring a well-trained militia. The Federal Farmer was equally critical of large standing armies.
Dating back to the spring of 1774, Gerry advocated for a strong colonial militia to resist the British. “Given Gerry’s republican outlook, one of his greatest fears was that of a standing army within a ‘free state.’ Apprehensive lest the militia created to counter the British be turned against the American people, Gerry insisted upon a highly decentralized military force. He was as anxious to fragment and control military power as much as political power.”[49]
As a member of the Confederation Congress in 1784 Gerry indicated that “standing armies in times of peace, are inconsistent with principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism.”[50]
During the Constitutional Convention Gerry proposed that in peace time the army should not consist of more than two or three thousand troops.[51] Gerry also resisted Congressional power over the state militias, opposed two-year appropriations for the military, and objected to federal suppressions of rebellions without requests for assistance from the states.[52]
- “Mr. Gerry took notice that there was (no) check here agst. standing armies in time of peace. The existing Congs. is so constructed that it cannot of itself maintain an army. This wd. not be the case under the new system. The people were jealous on this head, and great opposition to the plan would spring from such an omission.”[53]
- “Gerry objected that it admitted of appropriations to an army for two years instead of one, for which he could not conceive a reason— that it implied there was to be a standing army which he inveighed against as dangerous to liberty, as unnecessary even for so great an extent of Country as this, and if necessary, some restriction on the number & duration ought to be provided: Nor was this a proper time for such an innovation. The people would not bear it.”[54]
The Federal Farmer shared the same hostility to standing armies, favored militias formed of the people, and argued that the power of the “purse and sword” should be kept distinct:
- “a large standing army has a strong tendency to depress and inslave the people” (FF13)
- “I see so many men in America fond of a standing army, and especially among those who probably will have a large share in administering the federal system.” (FF3)
- “The militia ought always to be armed and disciplined, and the usual defence of the country.” (FF6)
- “the purse and sword ought not to be placed in the same hands in a free government” (FF17)
- “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.” (FF18)
In the debate over what would become the Second Amendment, Gerry made clear his support for the role of citizen militias in contrast to dreaded standing armies, which were the “bane of liberty.” In a speech on August 17 Gerry indicated:
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution.[55]
Gerry sought to further refine the Second Amendment to clarify that militias should be the primary military force whenever possible in peacetime:
[Mr. Gerry objected] to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed: A well-regulated militia being the best security of a free state, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read ‘‘a well regulated militia, trained to arms,’’ in which case it would become the duty of the government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done. Mr. Gerry’s motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported, which being adopted.[56]
Recognition of the evils of slavery
The antislavery sentiments expressed by Elbridge Gerry align with the Federal Farmer. During the Constitutional Convention Gerry asked why slaves “who were property in the South” should be entitled to any more representation “than the cattle & horses of the North?”[57] Recognizing the intransigence of South Carolina and Georgia over slavery, Gerry asserted, we “ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it.”[58]
The Federal Farmer was likewise critical of slavery. Federal Farmer No. 3 described the southern states as a “generally a dissipated aristocracy” composed chiefly of “rich planters and slaves” with few moderate freeholders.[59] Federal Farmer No. 18 opined that notwithstanding the Constitution’s defects, “the stipulation that congress, after twenty one years may prohibit the importation of slaves, is a point gained, if not so favourable as could be wished for.”[60]
In February of 1790, the first Congress considered antislavery petitions submitted by Pennsylvania Quakers and from several state abolition societies.[61] Although Congress routinely referred petitions to committees for appropriate action, several southerners opposed accepting the petitions, let alone acting on them. Unlike his southern colleagues, Congressman Gerry welcomed these efforts which were referred to a select committee.[62]
On February 11 Congressman Gerry commended the Quakers and their efforts to pursue measures in furtherance of the “cause of humanity” to “wipe off the indelible stain” of the slave trade:
That their Southern brethren had been betrayed into the slave trade by the first settlers, was to be lamented; they were not to be reflected on for not viewing this subject in a different light, the prejudice of education is eradicated with difficulty; but he thought nothing would excuse the General Government for not exerting itself to prevent, as far as they Constitutionally could, the evils resulting from such enormities as were alluded to by the petitioners; and the same considerations induced him highly to commend the part the Society of Friends had taken; it was the cause of humanity they had interested themselves in, and he wished, with them, to see measures pursued by every nation, to wipe off the indelible stain which the slave trade had brought upon all who were concerned in it.[63]
On February 12 he lamented the “miseries” and “deplorable circumstances” of the slave trade and its “flagrant acts of cruelty.” Gerry disagreed with his southern colleagues that Congress lacked any power to regulate this “inhuman commerce”:
Mr. GERRY thought the interference of Congress fully compatible with the Constitution, and could not help lamenting the miseries; to which the natives of Africa were exposed by this inhuman commerce. He never contemplated the subject, without reflecting what his own feelings would be, in case himself, his children or friends, were placed in the same deplorable circumstances. He then adverted to the flagrant acts of cruelty which are committed in carrying on that traffic; and asked, whether it can be supposed that Congress has no power to prevent such abuses? He then referred to the Constitution and pointed out the restrictions laid on the General Government respecting the importation of slaves. It was not, he presumed, in the contemplation of any gentleman in this House to violate that part of the Constitution; but that we have a right to regulate this business, is as clear as that we have any rights whatever; nor has the contrary been shown by any person who has spoken on the occasion.[64]
Separation of powers
Gerry was fearful of unchecked governmental power and was a purest when it came to separation of powers. The same was true of the Federal Farmer. Gerry’s speeches during the Constitutional Convention and his record at the first federal Congress align with Federal Farmer Nos. 3, 6, and 14.
Gerry’s consistent philosophy has been described as follows:
Gerry’s republicanism included certain safeguards both within and without the government to check any abuses to the liberties of the people. He believed in the fragmentation of authority within the government, and sought to prevent too much power from being placed in the hands of a single person, group, or branch of government. For this reason, he insisted on the principles of mixed government and the separation of powers, as well as the ideas of rotation in office. He carried over to the Constitution also many ideas to which he had subscribed in the Revolution — an aversion to monarchical and aristocratic traditions, standing armies, and arbitrary judges and courts.[65]
During the Constitutional Convention Gerry was particularly opposed to the Vice President serving as the president of the Senate. This topic was one of Gerry’s enumerated objections on September 15 and was reiterated in his formal objections to the Massachusetts legislature on October 18. Examples include:
- “We might as well put the President himself at the head of the Legislature. The close intimacy that must subsist between the President & vice-president makes it absolutely improper. He was agst. having any vice President” (Sept 7)
- “Making the vice-President Speaker increases the danger.” (Sept 12)
- “the vice president being made head of the Senate” (Sept 15 objections)
- “the Executive is blended with and will have undue influence over the Legislature” (Oct 18 objections)
Federal Farmer Nos. 3, 6 and 14 provide clear examples of this theme:
- “the president and senate in all transactions of any importance; the president is connected with, or tied to the senate” (FF3)
- “And as to the principal defects, as the smallness of the representation, the insecurity of elections, the undue mixture of powers in the senate, the insecurity of some essential rights, &c. the opposition appears, generally, to agree respecting them, and many of the ablest advocates virtually to admit them.” (FF6)
- “It is a good general rule, that the legislative, executive, and judicial powers, ought to be kept distinct; but this, like other general rules, has its exceptions; and without these exceptions we cannot form a good government, and properly balance its parts: and we can determine only from reason, experience, and a critical inspection of the parts of the government, how far it is proper to intermix those powers.” (FF14)
- FF14: “to place an undue influence in the hands of the president and council”
Not surprisingly, Gerry’s record in Congress bears this out. He was particularly conscious of the first Congress creating precedents which violate this principles of separation of powers:
- GERRY defended his first opinion, that the several branches of Government should be kept separate. He was only solicitous, he said, that the House should not establish a precedent which would mix the several parts of the Government.[66]
- GERRY observed, that somehow or other the House is continually recurring to; the modes of procedure adopted by the late Congress, who were both a Legislative and Executive body; the present Government is organized on quite different principles.[67]
This post continues with a discussion of Melancton Smith, the likely author of the Antifederalist letters of Brutus. Historians have long recognized the similarities between the Federal Farmer and Brutus. Many continue to believe that Melancton Smith was the Federal Farmer. Part 8 (pending) builds on Kaminski’s suggestion that Melancton, one of Gerry’s allies, was the Republican to whom the letters of the Federal Farmer were addressed.
Endnotes
[1] DHRCBR, 1:380.
[2] Billias, 231.
[3] Federal Farmer No. 6.
[4] Federal Farmer No. 5.
[5] Farrand, 2:588 (12 September 1787).
[6] Farrand, 2:617 (14 September 1787).
[7] Farrand, 3:128 (18 Oct 1787 objections).
[8] John P. Kaminski, “The Role of Newspapers in New York’s Debate Over the Federal Constitution,” in Stephen L. Schechter and Richard B. Bernstein, eds., New York and the Union (Albany, 1990), 287.
[9] Congressional Register, June 10.
[10] Kaminski, “The Role of Newspapers,” 285.
[11] Madison announced his intention to submit proposed amendments in a speech before the House of Representatives on May 4. One month later, Madison submitted his proposed amendments on June 8. DHRCBR, 1:278, 1:328-330.
[12] DHRCBR, 1:412; 1:425.
[13] DHRCBR, 1:314.
[14] DHRCBR, 1:328.
[15] DHRCBR, 1:329.
[16] Billias, 229.
[17] DHRCBR, 1:410, 1:429.
[18] A total of 292 amendments were proposed by the state conventions, which represented 102 amendments after accounting for duplication. DHRCBR, 1:232.
[19] As stated by Gerry: “For I am not, sir, one of those blind admirers of this system, who think it all perfection; nor am I so blind as not to see its beauties. The truth is, it partakes of humanity; in it is blended virtue and vice, errors and excellence. But I think, if it is referred to a new convention, we run the risk of losing some of its best properties; this is a case I never wish to see.” DHRCBR, 1:328.
[20] DHRCBR, 1:330-331. Gerry used the same phrase, “examined on its own merits,” in a speech on August 21. DHRCBR, 1:420.
[21] Federal Farmer No. 1.
[22] Federal Farmer No. 1: “It is best to let it rest solely on its own merits or be condemned for its own defects.” DHRC, 19:212.
Federal Farmer No. 6: “Had the advocates left the constitution, as they ought to have done, to be adopted or rejected on account of its own merits or imperfections I do not believe the gentlemen who framed it would ever have been even alluded to in the contest by the opposers.” DHRC, 20:981.
[23] Advertisement prefixed to the Additional Letters of the Federal Farmer. DHRC, 20:976-977.
[24] DHRCBR, 1:386, 387, 397.
[25] DHRCBR, 1:338.
[26] DHRCBR, 1:341.
[27] DHRCBR, 1:347-348.
[28] DHRCBR, 1:342.
[29] Billias, 231.
[30] DHRCBR, 1:375
[31] DHRCBR, 1:368.
[32] DHRCBR, 1:368.
[33] DHRCBR, 1:372.
[34] DHRCBR, 1:459.
[35] DHRCBR, 1:129.
[36] DHRCBR, 1:419.
[37] Billias, 233, 400 n. 67.
[38] DHRCBR, 1:377.
[39] DHRCBR, 1:378.
[40] DHRCBR, 1:378.
[41] DHRCBR, 1:379.
[42] DHRCBR, 1:407; Billias, 231.
[43] DHRC, 20:985.
[44] DHRC 20:1057.
[45] According to Madison’s notes on May 30:
Genl. Pinkney expressed a doubt whether the act of Congs. recommending the Convention, or the Commissions of the deputies to it, could authorize a discussion of a System founded on different principles from the federal Constitution. Mr. Gerry seemed to entertain the same doubt. Farrand, 1:34.
[46] According to McHenry’s notes of Gerry’s May 30 speech:
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do it, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose a government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusetts empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the founding of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation. Farrand, 1:42.
[47] Billias, 234.
[48] DHRCBR, 1:429
[49] Billias, 33.
[50] Journals of the Continental Congress (2 June 1784), 27:518.
[51] Farrand, 2:329-330 (August 18).
[52] DHRC, 4:xlv.
[53] Farrand, 2:329 (August 18).
[54] Farrand, 2:509 (September 5).
[55] DHRCBR, 1:400-401.
[56] DHRCBR, 1:403.
[57] Farrand, 1:201 (June 11).
[58] Farand, 2:372 (Aug. 22).
[59] DHRC, 19:221.
[60] DHRC, 22:1080.
[61] Edward J. Larson, American Inheritance: Liberty and Slavery in the Birth of a Nation, 1765-1795 (W. W. Norton & Co., 2023), 244.
[62] Larson, 245.
[63] Annals, 2:1189; DHFFC, 12:289.
[64] Annals, 2:1204; DHFFC, 12:312.
[65] Billias, 154.
[66] Annals, 2:1465.
[67] Annals, 2:1464.