Evidence of the Federal Farmer / Elbridge Gerry Authorship Thesis
(Uncovering the Federal Farmer – Part 4)
History has not been kind – or fair – to Elbridge Gerry. In his day Gerry was well respected for his integrity, perseverance and patriotism.[1] But today Gerry is associated with gerrymandering, which he actually considered to be “exceedingly disagreeable.”[2] Gerry demonstrated true political courage during the Constitutional Convention and ratification debate. Nevertheless, Gerry is commonly described as a “Grumbletonian” who is criticized for “objecting to everything he did not propose.”[3] Yet, in truth Gerry may be one of the most important and under-appreciated figures of the founding era.
During the final week of the Constitutional Convention Gerry and George Mason unsuccessfully moved for the appointment of a committee to draft a bill of rights.[4] On September 14th Gerry sought a declaration that “the liberty of the press should be inviolably observed.”[5] After many of his proposals had been rejected, on September 15th Gerry provided notice that he would be withholding his name from the Constitution.[6] Gerry then proceeded to enumerate his objections, which included “the insecurity of individual rights.”[7] On the final day of the Convention, Gerry was one of only three delegates who refused to sign the Constitution.
Gerry was outspoken in his opposition to the Constitution. His objections to the Constitution were the first of the dissenting delegates to be published.[8] In a letter dated October 18 to the Massachusetts legislature, Gerry officially went public with his opposition. His widely republished October 18 letter made Gerry a lightning rod for the Federalist defenders of the Constitution. The vicious attacks leveled against Gerry provide a likely explanation for why Gerry never disclosed his identity as the Federal Farmer. Gerry has thus been denied recognition for his rightful role as the author of arguably the most influential Antifederalist essays, the Observations of the Federal Farmer.
During the ratification campaign, Gerry’s home state made history for the so-called “Massachusetts Compromise.” Although Massachusetts was the sixth state to ratify, it was the first state to give voice to Antifederalist concerns with recommended amendments. Six of the remaining seven states would follow the Massachusetts precedent.[9] In light of Gerry’s leading Antifederalist role, it is unfortunate that he isn’t given more credit for the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
This blog post, Uncovering the Federal Farmer (Part 4), is the fourth installment of a multi-part series attempting to demystify the Federal Farmer. Part 1 reported the uncovering of an unpublished and undated manuscript by Elbridge Gerry which sheds new light on his identity as the Federal Farmer. Part 2 continued with a discussion of Elbridge Gerry, the elusive founding father who was one of the Constitutional Convention’s most outspoken and “consistently contrary” delegates. Part 2 also 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 late 20th century historians.
Part 4 provides a deep dive into archival evidence and the historic record. While Kaminski’s attribution is in itself compelling, Statutesandstories.com has uncovered additional evidence which helps confirm the conclusion that Elbridge Gerry was in fact the Federal Farmer. While no single piece of evidence is alone conclusive, it is believed that the combined weight of the mutually reinforcing evidence is striking. The totality of the following evidence, combined with Kaminski’s attribution analysis, is hereinafter referred to as the Federal Farmer – Elbridge Gerry Authorship Thesis (“FEAT”). It is anticipated that independent scholarly review of the FEAT will support the conclusion that Kaminski’s attribution that Elbridge Gerry was the Federal Farmer is now settled. In other words, it is the goal of this essay and the attached spreadsheets to put to rest “by far the most controversial and long-lived debate over the authorship of a pseudonymous essay” which also turns out to be arguably “the single best Antifederalist statement during the entire ratification debate.”[10]
Part 4 is no small undertaking. The FEAT is based on a detailed review of decades of correspondence, legislative history, Antifederalist literature, genealogical records, and secondary sources. Much of this work is only made possible after the completion of the monumental forty-seven volumes of the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution (DHRC). Readers are thus advised that Part 4 is not intended to be a traditional blog post. Rather, Part 4 might best be consumed in digestible installments.
Determination to “leave no stone unturned”
While attending the Constitutional Convention Gerry frequently corresponded with his young wife Ann. Gerry’s letters from Philadelphia to Ann residing with her parents in New York City were transcribed in 1987 for the bicentennial of the Constitution.[11] Gerry’s ten letters to Ann shed light on his thinking and capture his growing dissatisfaction with the emerging draft of the Constitution. For the first three months of the Convention Gerry actively participated in the deliberations. The Constitution thus contains many provisions originally proposed by Gerry. Yet, beginning in mid-August, Gerry pivoted to become an Antifederalist.[12]
As described in Part 1, a long overlooked and unpublished “11th letter” from Gerry was recently re-discovered. Consistent with his prior letters, Gerry confided in the 11th letter to Ann that he was “determined to leave no stone unturned” to prevent adoption of the Constitution. The FEAT Thesis argues that the Federal Farmer essays were the means by which Gerry sought to “prevent” the adoption of the measures he feared. Publishing the Federal Farmer anonymously made sense as Federalist invective had already taken its toll on Gerry’s reputation. Anonymous essays could stand on their own merits. This is exactly how the Federal Farmer invited readers to evaluate the proposed Constitution – and was the very reason why pseudonyms were so often utilized during the ratification debate.[13]
In Federal Farmer No. 1, Gerry committed that he would endeavor to write “with candor and fairness,” leaving to his readers “to decide upon the propriety of my opinions…” In Federal Farmer No. 5 Gerry likewise suggested that the state ratification conventions should “coolly” evaluate “every article, clause, and word” of the proposed Constitution.[14]When Federal Farmer No. 6 was published in May of 1788, Gerry expressed the goal to “coolly…state facts and deliberately…avow the truth.”[15]
Multiple members of the founding generation agreed that Gerry’s character was marked by his “integrity and perseverance.” The FEAT argues that both of these well recognized character traits would have motived Gerry to vigorously, but respectfully, leave no stone unturned opposing the Constitution.
The following examples reflect the esteem and respect of Gerry’s friends. In 1788, after the Constitution was ratified, James Warren praised Gerry for his “mens conscia recti,” a mind conscious of what is right.[16] John Adams agreed that, “[o]f Mr Gerry’s abilities, integrity and firmness I have ever entertained a very good opinion and on very solid grounds.”[17] James Madison also had a “very high esteem and a very warm regard” for Gerry, his Vice President.[18]
After the Constitution was ratified, Gerry reflected on his efforts during the ratification campaign. “I shall however console myself with the reflection, that should the consequences be injurious or ruinous, nothing has been wanting on my part in Convention or Congress to prevent them (emphasis added).”[19] A decade later, Gerry denied having any regrets about his dissenting role. “I have never repented, a moment, of my vote on that occasion, & have since seen the constitution amended, as I wished, & the illiberality of those retaliated, who denied me the right of deliberating freely, & of exercising my judgment, when my country demanded it.”[20] Accordingly, the historic record supports the conclusion that Gerry abided by his commitment to Ann that he would “leave no stone unturned” during the ratification campaign.
Greenleaf family relationship
Newspaper printers overwhelmingly supported the Federalists. As a result, Antifederalists encountered difficulty getting published. For example, Antifederalist Richard Henry Lee complained to Samuel Adams that, “[t]he friends of liberty here are astonished at the occlusion of the press in Boston at a season so momentous to mankind. It is thought to augur ill of the new government proposed, that on its being first ushered into the world, it should destroy the great palladium of human rights – And at Boston too, where first the presses pointed America to resist attempts upon her liberty & rights; there to find the great organ of free communications stopped…”[21]
When the Constitutional Convention adjourned in September of 1787 there were approximately ninety-five newspapers in the United States. Approximately eighty newspapers were outwardly Federalist; six were Antifederalist; and six were neutral.[22] Twelve newspapers were published in New York state during the ratification debate, with Federalist publishers vastly outnumbering their Antifederalist counterparts.[23] By far the most ardently Antifederalist publisher in New York State was Thomas Greenleaf, the publisher of the New York Journal. In New York City Greenleaf was the sole Antifederalist publisher.[24]
It is not surprising that Thomas Greenleaf was the first printer to publish the Federal Farmer pamphlets.[25] Yet, it turns out that Elbridge Gerry was also related to Thomas Greenleaf. Beginning on November 8, 1787, Thomas Greenleaf advertised that the Letters of the Federal Farmer were “Just received and to be SOLD, at T. Greenleaf’s Printing Office.”[26] Six months later, in May of 1788, Greenleaf published and sold the Additional Letters of the Federal Farmer.[27]
While Greenleaf owned a New York paper in 1787, he was originally from Massachusetts. Elbridge Gerry was also from Massachusetts, as was his mother, Elizabeth Greenleaf of Marblehead.[28] This of course raises the question of whether Gerry selected Greenleaf as his publisher due to their family relationship? Similarly, one might ask whether Greenleaf agreed to publish Antifederalist essays due to his family relationship with Gerry? Admittedly, the family relationship between Elbridge Gerry and Thomas Greenleaf may have been a coincidence. There is no proof that they even knew that they were related. With that said, it is also possible that the family connection was a reason why Gerry trusted Greenleaf as his publisher. The answer to this question is an interesting subject for future researchers.[29]
Greenleaf was originally trained as an apprentice by famous Massachusetts publisher Isaiah Thomas.[30] In September of 1785 Greenleaf relocated to New York City and began managing the New York Journal. He purchased the paper in January of 1787.[31] When the Constitutional Convention began later that year, Greenleaf originally supported the goal of establishing a stronger central government. In early September of 1787, the New York Journal began publishing Antifederalist pieces.[32] One can only speculate why? Did Elbridge Gerry play any role in convincing his third cousin to join the Antifederalist cause?
Both Gerry and Greenleaf were bitterly attacked by Federalists. Many readers cancelled their newspaper subscriptions. Sadly, after the Constitution was ratified in New York, a mob broke into Greenleaf’s print shop on the night of July 26, 1788. After the destruction of much of its printing equipment, the New York Journal reopened as a weekly rather than daily paper.[33] One can also speculate whether Gerry may have feared political violence when he elected to publish the Federal Farmer pseudonymously.
Gerry’s purchase of Elmwood estate in 1787
Why did Elbridge Gerry write under the pseudonym the Federal Farmer? Although historians commonly describe Elbridge Gerry as a merchant, in 1787 he purchased a sprawling estate in Cambridge known as Elmwood. Gerry’s new Elmwood property included a working farm.[34] The fact that Gerry became a gentleman farmer before the Constitutional Convention may help explain the use of the Federal Farmer pseudonym.
It is also noteworthy that the Federal Farmer quotes from John Dickinson’s Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania. In 1767-1768 Dickinson’s letters helped unite the colonies against the Townshend Acts. Thus, Gerry’s use of the Federal Farmer pseudonym may have been an homage to Dickinson and the popularity of the earlier Pennsylvania Farmer essays. Gerry’s decision to quote Dickinson is also instructive. In Federal Farmer No. 4, Gerry invokes Dickinson’s concept of “perpetual jealousy respecting liberty,” which was a central theme of the Federal Farmer:
I am sensible, thousands of men in the United States, are disposed – to adopt the proposed constitution, though they perceive it to be essentially defective, under an idea that amendment of it, may be obtained when necessary. This is a pernicious idea, it argues a servility of character totally unfit for the support of free government; it is very repugnant to that perpetual jealousy respecting liberty, so absolutely necessary in all free states, spoken of by Mr. Dickinson. – However, if our countrymen are so soon changed, and the language of 1774, is become odious to them, it will be in vain to use the language of freedom, or to attempt to rouse them to free enquiries: But I shall never believe this is the case with them, whatever present appearances may be, till I shall have very strong evidence indeed of it.
In the 18th century the modest “farmer” served as a symbol of moral virtue. “The farmer” would also have evoked classical allusions familiar to many readers of the time including Cincinnatus, the husbandman of Virgil’s Georgics and the Horatian maxim of the golden mean.[35]
A decade after his purchase of his Elmwood estate, Gerry referred to himself as “an obscure country farmer.” At a time of rising tensions with France, Gerry volunteered to President John Adams, “all the support in the power of an obscure country farmer (emphasis added).”[36] Was this a veiled reference to Gerry’s authorship of the Federal Farmer essays years earlier? If so, was Gerry volunteering to pick up his pen to help defend Adams’ policies? Did Adams even know of Gerry’s authorship of the Federal Farmer? Admittedly, subsequent correspondence by Adams doesn’t appear to explore Gerry’s “obscure country farmer” reference. Later that year Adams appointed Gerry as one of the three ministers plenipotentiary to France, leading into the XYZ Affair.
Massachusetts references
Elbridge Gerry was born and raised in Massachusetts. As a proud New Englander it would have been difficult for Gerry to conceal his roots. The Federal Farmer consistently grounded his arguments with examples from Massachusetts, which is explicitly mentioned over a dozen times.[37] In 1974 Gordon Wood published his seminal paper systematically dismantling the conventional wisdom that Richard Henry Lee was the Federal Farmer. One of the arguments raised by Wood was the fact that the Federal Farmer “drew nearly all of his local references and examples from the northern states,” particularly New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut.[38] While Wood did not propose an alternative author to replace Lee, Wood suggested that the Federal Farmer was likely a New Yorker.[39] To this day, many historians now believe that New Yorker, Melancton Smith, was the Federal Farmer. In 1988 Kaminski offered another alternative, a northerner from Massachusetts, who frequently traveled to New York and was married to a New Yorker: Elbridge Gerry.[40]
As a New Englander, Gerry shared a belief in a cluster of ideas and attitudes known as the “Puritan Ethic.”[41] According to Gerry’s biographer, this philosophy “called for a moral regeneration by the American people to restore the religiosity, frugality, and simplicity which those of the Revolutionary generation believed had prevailed at the time of the founding of New England.”[42] Ideals of the Puritan Ethic recur in the Federal Farmer.
Copied below are examples of the Puritan Ethic in the essays of the Federal Farmer. In particular, the concern for industry and frugality appears in the Federal Farmer No. 1 and repeats in the final two Federal Farmer essays:
- We are hardly recovered from a long and distressing war: The farmers. fishmen. &c. have not yet fully repaired the waste made by it. Industry and frugality are again assuming their proper station. (FF1)
- “…the greatest blessings we can wish for are peace, union, and industry under a mild, free, and steady government. (FF6)
- “It has been observed by an able writer, that frugal industrious merchants are generally advocates for liberty. (FF7)
- “I am very clearly of opinion, that the evils we sustain, merely on account of the defects of the confederation, are but as a feather in the balance against a mountain, compared with those which would, infallibly, be the result of the loss of general liberty, and that happiness men enjoy under a frugal, free, and mild government.” (FF17)
- “…have we not done more in three or four years past, in repairing the injuries of the war, by repairing houses and estates, restoring industry, frugality, the fisheries, manufactures, &c. and thereby laying the foundation of good government, and of individual and political happiness, than any people ever did in a like time…” (FF17)
- “…if we expect it will have any sincere attachments to simple and frugal republicanism, to that liberty and mild government, which is dear to the laborious part of a free people, we most assuredly deceive ourselves.” (FF18)
- “I will only add, can a free and enlightened people create a common head so extensive, so prone to corruption and slavery, as this city probably will be, when they have it in their power to form one pure and chaste, frugal and republican. (FF18)
Indeed, the Declaration of Rights in the Massachusetts Constitution embodies the Puritan Ethic in Article XVIII:
A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to those of piety, justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty, and to maintain a free government: The people ought, consequently, to have a particular attention to all those principles, in the choice of their officers and representatives: And they have a right to require of their law-givers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of the Commonwealth. (emphasis added)
Chapter 5, Section II of the Massachusetts Constitution encourages literature and the arts and sciences. In so doing, Section II identifies the principles of “industry and frugality” along with other goals of the Puritan Ethic:
Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this Commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools, and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humour, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.
Copied below are examples of the Federal Farmer describing the goals of a free and mild government. Arguably, these examples track the goal of “moderation” and other principles articulated in Article XVIII and Chapter 5, Section II of the Massachusetts Constitution:
- “the greatest blessing we can wish for are peace, union, and industry, under a mild, free, and steady ” (FF6)
- “A free and mild government is that in which no laws can be made without the formal and free consent of the people, or of their constitutional representatives” (FF6)
- “Liberty, in its genuine sense, is security to enjoy the effects of our honest industry and labours, in a free and mild government, and personal security from all illegal restraints.” (FF6)
- “a free and mild government can be preserved in their extensive territories, only under the substantial forms of a federal republic” (FF17)
- “frugal, free, and mild government” 334 (FF17)
- “as it respects general liberty, and the duration of a free and mild government” 341 (FF18)
- “if we expect it will have any sincere attachments to simple and frugal republicanism, to that liberty and mild government, which is dear to the laborious part of a free people” (FF18)
- “they will operate to produce a mild and prudent administration, and to put the wheels of the whole system in motion on proper principles” (FF18)
Federal Farmer No. 18 concludes with the following summary:
Whatever may be the fate of many valuable and necessary amendments in the constitution proposed, the ample discussion and respectable opposition it will receive, will have a good effect—they will operate to produce a mild and prudent administration, and to put the wheels of the whole system in motion on proper principles—they will evince, that true republican principles and attachments are still alive and formidable in this country.
These goals are also perfectly consistent with Elbridge Gerry’s political views expressed during his entire career. As early as 1772, he wrote that government should be evaluated on the basis of whether it was “salutary and mild, or oppressive and distressing.”[43] For Gerry, moderation and mild behavior was a goal. For example, in July of 1790 Gerry wrote to President Washington recommending his brother Samuel Russell Gerry for an appointment as treasury collector for the port of Marblehead. Gerry praised his brother’s “mild & decent behaviour he possesses in a high degree.”[44] Similarly, Gerry wrote to President John Adams recommending William Lee for an appointment as ambassador to France. Gerry described Lee and his manners as “naturally mild & humane, & his integrity, & candor, unimpeached: & he appears to me, a real patriot; but not a patriotic zealot.”[45] In a letter to incoming President Jefferson, Gerry wrote of the need for a cabinet that we “perfectly just, mild, & honorable, as I am sure yours will be, in its views & measures…”[46]
The eighteen Federal Farmer essays also contain indirect clues that the author was from Massachusetts. Federal Farmer No. 5 asks, “What can be the views of those gentlemen in Boston, who countenanced the printers in shutting up the press against a fair and free investigation of this important system in the usual way?” In multiple cases the Federal Farmer referred to “fishmen,”[47] “fishermen,”[48] and “the fishing interest.”[49] Gerry had a family background in the fishing and shipping industry, where his family operated Gerry’s wharf in Marblehead.[50] Federal Farmer No. 4[51] and 7[52]both quote one of Massachusetts favorite sons, John Adams. Skeptics might point out that it is no surprise that Adams was cited in ratification era essay. Adams had recently published his book In Defense of Constitutions as he was unable to attend the Constitutional Convention while serving as the American minister to London. Yet, Gerry was a lifelong friend of the Adams family, including both John Adams and Samuel Adams.[53] Thus, one would expect Gerry as the Federal Farmer to quote Adams, as was the decidedly case.
As described by Gordon Wood when he refuted the longstanding Richard Henry Lee attribution, the Federal Farmer “went out of his way to denigrate the southern planters.”[54] John Kaminski similarly observed that the Federal Famer evidenced a “sectional bias against the South and in favor of New England.”[55] For example, Federal Farmer No. 3 wrote that, “The Eastern (Northern) states are very democratic, and composed chiefly of moderate freeholders: they have but few rich men and no slaves…” By contrast, “…the Southern states are composed chiefly of rich planters and slaves; they have but few moderate freeholders, and the prevailing influence, in them, is generally a dissipated aristocracy…” In 1783, Gerry wrote to John Adams warning what would happen if America was “gradually divested of its virtuous republican principles.” He feared we would become a divided and “dissipated” people.[56]
Citations to the Massachusetts Constitution
In addition to the norms and values expressed in the Massachusetts Constitution, the Federal Farmer essays contain multiple, unattributed references to substantive provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution. For example, by arguing that our countrymen are entitled to “a government of laws and not of men,” Federal Farmer No. 5 was quoting from Article XXX of the Massachusetts Constitution, without attribution. This insight does not appear to have been mentioned by scholars because the Federal Farmer did not explicitly cite to the underlying constitutional provision. Similarly, several of Gerry’s (and the Federal Farmer’s) objections to the proposed US Constitution flow from specific prohibitions in the Massachusetts Constitution, which the Federal Farmer did not explicitly identify.
A consistent theme of both Elbridge Gerry and the Federal Farmer is the repeated objection to the blending of powers. During the Constitutional Convention Elbridge Gerry and James Wilson engaged in a robust exchange on July 21 over the practice and implementation of separation of powers.
Wilson explained: “The separation of the departments does not require that they should have separate objects but that they should act separately tho’ on the same objects. It is necessary that the two branches of the Legislature should be separate and distinct, yet they are both to act precisely on the same object Mr. Gerry had rather give the Executive an absolute negative for its own defence than thus to blend togetherthe Judiciary & Executive department. It will bind them together in an offensive and defensive alliance agst. the Legislature, and render the latter unwilling to enter into a contest with them.”[57]
As described in Madison’s notes:
“Mr. Gerry did not expect to see this point which had undergone full discussion, again revived. The object he conceived of the Revisionary power was merely to secure the Executive department agst. legislative encroachment. The Executive therefore who will best know and be ready to defend his rights ought alone to have the defence of them. The motion was liable to strong objections. It was combining & mixing together the Legislative & the other departments. It was establishing an improper coalition between the Executive & Judiciary departments. It was making Statesmen of the Judges; and setting them up as the guardians of the Rights of the people. He relied for his part on the Representatives of the people as the guardians of their Rights & interests. It was making the Expositors of the Laws, the Legislators which ought never to be done.”[58]
Gerry’s strict interpretation of separation of powers at the Constitutional Convention aligns with both the Federal Farmer and the prohibitions in the Massachusetts Constitution. As set forth below, the Federal Farmer repeatedly criticizes the Constitution’s “improper blending of powers” and “undue mixture of powers”:
- “In the judicial department, powers ever kept distinct in well balanced governments, are no less improperly blendedin the hands of the same men” (FF3)
- “These powers, which by this constitution are blended in the same hands” (FF4)
- “the undue mixture of powers in the Senate” (FF6)
- “an influence unmixed with the legislative, which the executive never can have while connected with a powerful branch of the legislature.” (FF13)
- “It is a good general rule, that the legislative, executive and judicial powers, ought to be kept distinct…..” (FF14)
This strict interpretation of separation of powers by Gerry and the Federal Farmer dovetails with Article XXX of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution. Although the Federal Farmer didn’t explicitly cite it, he almost certainly knew that Article XXX prohibited the mixing of powers as follows:
XXX. – In the government of this Commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men. (emphasis added)
The Massachusetts Constitution also contains an “Incompatibility of and Exclusion from Office” provision. Chapter VI, Article 2 of the Massachusetts Constitution provides that “No person shall be capable of holding or exercising at the same time” more than one office. It is thus not surprising that both Gerry and the Federal Farmer believed that the US Constitution should contain a similar provision making members of Congress ineligible for other offices.[59]
Consistent with Chapter VI, Article 2, of the Massachusetts Constitution, at the Convention Gerry argued that excluding members of Congress from presidential appointments helped insure that elected officials would retain their independence. The goal was to avoid creating incentives to curry favor with the executive branch. Gerry observed that such a prohibition reduced the risk of “intrigues of ambitious men for displacing proper officers, in order to create vacancies for themselves.”[60] In June and August Gerry moved that members of Congress should be “ineligible not only during, but for one year after the expiration of their terms.”[61]
Indeed, a one-year delay between Congressional service and an executive appointment was a long-held position by Gerry. In August of 1779, Gerry wrote to John Adams expressing this exact same view which he consistently espoused at the Constitutional Convention and as the Federal Farmer:
However I shall never wish to see any of my Friends in important offices under Congress until they have adopted a Resolution, that no person shall be appointed to any office of profit of the united States, during the Time of or within twelve Months after his being a Member of Congress.[62] (emphasis added)
Thus, Gerry’s position at the Convention perfectly aligns with the Federal Farmer and the “Incompatibility of and Exclusion from Office Provision” of Chapter VI, Article 2 of the Massachusetts Constitution. Federal Farmer No. 9 evaluated methods of making it “more difficult to corrupt and influence” members of Congress. The Federal Farmer’s solution was to exclude members of Congress “from being appointed to offices” and otherwise “limiting their powers.”[63] Elbridge Gerry couldn’t have said it better.
Insider Information known by the Federal Farmer
Both Gordon Wood and John Kaminski recognized that the Federal Farmer had access to insider information from the Constitutional Convention.[64] For Wood, this was evidence which helped disprove that Richard Henry Lee was the Federal Farmer. For Kaminski the fact that the Federal Farmer had information “about what transpired during the secret meetings of the Convention” was evidence of his Elbridge Gerry attribution thesis. Admittedly, insider information – by itself – doesn’t prove Gerry’s authorship of the Federal Farmer. Yet, it should be clear from the following examples that the Federal Farmer was almost assuredly a dissenting Convention delegate from a large state, who was present at the conclusion of the convention. Moreover, in each of these examples, it is significant that Gerry was expressing specific dissenting views at the Convention which perfectly align with the Federal Farmer.
Federal Farmer No. 1 and 2 refer to the “proceedings of the Convention” in connection with the danger of “consolidation” of the states. As described by the Federal Farmer No. 2, “I acknowledge the proceedings of the convention furnish my mind with many new and strong reasons, against a complete consolidation of the states.” (emphasis added). Gordon Wood recognized that the “problem of consolidation and the threatened destruction of the states” lay at the heart of the Federal Farmer’s objections.[65] The same issue of consolidation was a major concern of Gerry.[66]
A second example of insider information involves the debate over the size of Congress. Federal Farmer No. 3 observed that, “[t]he convention found that any but a small house of representatives would be expensive, and that it would be impracticable to assemble a large number of representatives. It turns out that Gerry wanted larger House of Representatives but was overruled during the Convention.[67]
Likewise, Federal Farmer No. 9 shares insider information from the Convention involving deliberations over the size of the House. This is a rare example – and dramatic instance – of George Washington requesting an amendment on the final day of the Convention:
“The Convention was divided on this point of numbers: at least some of its ablest members urged that instead of 65 representatives there ought to be 130 in the first instance. They fixed one representative for each 40,000 inhabitants, and at the close of the work, the president suggested, that the representation appeared to be too small and without debate, it was put at, not exceeding one for each 30,000.”
During the Convention Gerry made clear that he wanted to expand the representation with a larger House. When the Convention made its last-minute change in the size of the House at Washington’s urging on September 17, the Convention was agreed with Gerry that representation thresholds needed to be expanded.[68]
Federal Farmer No. 14 evidenced insider information about the debate over presidential terms of office. Yet again, this dovetails with Gerry’s minority views at the Convention. As relayed by the Federal Farmer 14, “[t]he Convention, it seems, first agreed that the President should be chosen for seven years” and ineligible for re-election. During the Convention Gerry consistently sought a longer, but single presidential term of office.[69]
Another useful example of insider information suggests that the Federal Farmer was from a larger state. Federal Farmer No. 1 explained that “from the tenacity of the small states to have an equal vote in the senate, probably originated the greatest defects in the proposed plan.” It is unlikely that the Federal Farmer would have criticized the small states if he was from a small state. Of course, Gerry was from Massachusetts, one of the three largest states in 1787.
Gerry’s letter to the Massachusetts Convention in January of 1788 sheds further light on the behind-the-scenes deliberations at the Convention. According to Gerry, he never would have agreed to equal representation of the big and small states in the Senate if it wasn’t part of a larger compromise:
The admission, however, of the smaller States to an equal representation in the Senate, never would have been agreed to by the Committee, or by myself, as a member of it, without the provision ‘that all bills for raising or appropriating money, and for fixing the salaries of the officers of government,’ should originate in the House of Representatives, and ‘not be altered or amended’ by the Senate, ‘and that no money should be drawn from the treasury’ ‘but in pursuance of such appropriations.[70]
Not only was Elbridge Gerry a delegate from Massachusetts, he was the only dissenting delegate from a large northern state who was present on the final day of the Convention.
Gerry’s Convention timeline
As indicated above, the Federal Farmer clearly had access to insider information from the Convention.[71] Nevertheless, there is a curious gap in the Federal Farmer’s knowledge. As set forth below, the discrete Convention details known to the Federal Farmer dovetail with Gerry’s timeline as a Convention delegate. Federal Farmer No. 13 focused on the issue of appointments, which was a controversial topic at the Constitutional Convention. The following passage provides powerful clues as to the identity of the Federal Farmer:
The valuable effects of this principle of making legislators ineligible to offices for a given time, has never yet been sufficiently attended to or considered: I am assured, that it was established by the convention after long debate, and afterwards, on an unfortunate change of a few members, altered. Could the federal legislators be excluded in the manner proposed, I think it would be an important point gained; as to themselves, they would be left to act much more from motives consistent with the public good.[72](emphasis added)
By discussing deliberations at the Convention the Federal Farmer was displaying access to insider information only available to Convention delegates (or information shared by delegates). Yet, the Federal Farmer was not admitting personal knowledge of all Convention deliberations. Rather the author had to be “assured” that the principle of ineligibility from office was “established” after long debate. How can this statement be reconciled with the fact that Gerry was a delegate to the Convention?
The answer is that Gerry was not present during the first week of the Constitutional Convention. Gerry first arrived on May 29th, after the Convention obtained a quorum on May 25th.[73] Accordingly, he was not privy to the formulation of the Virginia Plan which contained the initial exclusion preventing appointment of members of Congress.[74] Yet, Gerry was present during for subsequent discussions of this topic. In particular, on September 3 a motion was made by Charles Pinkney to remove the prohibition that Gerry supported.
According to Madison’s notes, Mr. Pinkney “was strenuously opposed to an ineligibility of members to office, and therefore wished to restrain the proposition to a mere incompatibility.” Gerry objected to Pinkney’s amendment.[75]Nevertheless, Pinkney succeeded in removing this exclusion on September 3rd. This explains Gerry’s statement in Federal Farmer No. 13 that “afterwards, on an unfortunate change of a few members” the exclusion he preferred was “altered.” As described by Herbert Storing, “[i]n its early deliberations the Convention accepted the provision of the Virginia resolution for ineligibility. The decisive shift toward the milder prohibition that found its way into the Constitution came on 3 September.”[76]
This explanation perfectly aligns with Luther Martin’s account from the Convention involving Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution. In his “Information to the General Assembly of the State of Maryland” Martin sets forth his reasons for departing the Convention and not signing the Constitution. Martin’s discussion confirms the controversy over Article 1, Section 6’s eligibility for appointment exclusion. According to Martin, this provision was revised on September 3, “by dint of perseverance” of Pinkney. This occurred over Gerry’s objection during the final weeks of the Convention:
I was in the number of those who were extremely solicitous to preserve this part of the report; but there was a powerful opposition made by such who wished the members of the legislature to be eligible to offices under the United States–Three different times did they attempt to procure an alteration, and as often failed, a majority firmly adhering to the resolution as reported by the committee; however, an alteration was at length by dint of perseverance, obtained even within the last twelve days of the convention, for it happened after I left Philadelphia.[77]
“Acquit me of any agency”
Federal Farmer No. 1 asks readers to “acquit me” of any agency in the formation of the new system. This is yet another autobiographical example that the Federal Farmer was a dissenting delegate. In fact, Gerry can be described as an “insider-turned outsider,”[78] who initially supported the goals of the Convention until mid-August. Gerry was also placed in the unenviable position as a wealthy, formally educated Harvard graduate needing to appeal to the yeoman farmer base of the Antifederalist opposition.
Federal Farmer No. 1 explained his views, as he attempted to chart a middle course:
Though I have long apprehended that fraudulent debtors, and embarrassed men, on the one hand, and men, on the other, unfriendly to republican equality, would produce an uneasiness among the people, and prepare the way, not for cool and deliberate reforms in the governments, but for changes calculated to promote the interests of particular orders of men.? Acquit me, sir, of any agency in the formation of the new system; I shall be satisfied with seeing, if it shall be adopted, a prudent administration.
This introduction in Federal Farmer No. 1 thus very much aligns with Gerry’s position at the Constitutional Convention. Madison’s notes on July 5 recount the following equivocation by Gerry:
Mr. Gerry: Tho’ he had assented to the Report in the Committee, he had very material objections to it. We were however in a peculiar situation. We were neither the same Nation nor different Nations. We ought not therefore to pursue the one or the other of these ideas too closely. If no compromise should take place what will be the consequence. A secession he foresaw would take place; for some gentlemen seem decided on it: two different plans will be proposed; and the result no man could foresee. If we do not come to some agreement among ourselves some foreign sword will probably do the work for us.
Accordingly, during the Convention Gerry had “very material objections,” but attempted to facilitate compromise between competing camps. Likewise, the Federal Farmer attempted to do the same.
Gerry’s painful situation
Both Gerry and the Federal Farmer described “painful” circumstances which on closer review provides autobiographical attribution evidence. When Gerry wrote his October 18 letter to the Massachusetts legislature explaining the reasons why he refused to sign the Constitution he described his painful political situation. According to Gerry, “[i]t was painful for me, on a subject of such national importance, to differ from the respectable members who signed the constitution.” Nonetheless, he explained that it was his “duty” to oppose the Constitution as it did not secure the liberties of America. The Federal Farmer likewise repeatedly uses the word painful/pain to describe political situations.
For example, Federal Farmer No. 6 explains that when the Constitution was first released, the Federalists zealously attempted to prevent a fair and unbiased scrutiny of the proposed Constitution. Under these circumstances, it was the “duty” of those who knew better to coolly state the facts and deliberately avow the truth. The Federal Farmer recognized that the result can be a “painful view of mean and measures.”
When the constitution was first published, there appeared to prevail a misguided zeal to prevent a fair unbiased examination of a subject of infinite importance to this people and their posterity — to the cause of liberty and the rights of mankind — and it was the duty of those who saw a restless ardor, or design, attempting to mislead the people by a parade of names and misrepresentations, to endeavour to prevent their having their intended effects. The only way to stop the passions of men in their career is, coolly to state facts, and deliberately to avow the truth — and to do this we are frequently forced into a painful view of men and measures.
On the last day of the Constitutional Convention, Gerry described his “painful” situation when he was unable to sign the Constitution. According to Madison’s notes:
Mr Gerry described the painful feelings of his situation, and the embarrassment under which he rose to offer any further observations on the subject wch. had been finally decided. Whilst the plan was depending, he had treated it with all the freedom he thought it deserved— He now felt himself bound as he was disposed to treat it with the respect due to the Act of the Convention— He hoped he should not violate that respect in declaring on this occasion his fears that a Civil war may result from the present crisis of the U. S— In Massachusetts, particularly he saw the danger of this calamitous event— In that State there are two parties, one devoted to Democracy, the worst he thought of all political evils, the other as violent in the opposite extreme. From the collision of these in opposing and resisting the Constitution, confusion was greatly to be feared. He had thought it necessary for this & other reasons that the plan should have been proposed in a more mediating shape, in order to abate the heat and opposition of parties— As it had been passed by the Convention, he was persuaded it would have a contrary effect— He could not therefore by signing the Constitution pledge himself to abide by it at all events.[79]
In addition to Federal Farmer No. 6, the Federal Farmer also uses the word “pain” in other political contexts in letters No. 14, 17 and 18. Not surprisingly, Gerry’s correspondences in the 1780s contains multiple examples of similar “painful” political situations.[80]
Autobiographical connections
In several cases, the arguments by the Federal Farmer contain autobiographical clues. For example, Federal Farmer No. 6 complained of the conduct of the Federalists and their treatment of the Antifederalists. “The gentlemen who oppose the constitution, or contend for amendments in it, are frequently, and with much bitterness, charged with wantonly attacking the men who framed it.” After calling out the “unjustness of this charge” Federal Farmer No. 6 identified Gerry by name, along with Mason and Lee who were being treated with “indecent virulence” by ardent Federalists.[81] This discussion is arguably autobiographical and explains why the Federal Farmer might have wanted to conceal his identity. In correspondence after the ratification campaign, Gerry described the “torrent of abuse” against him and the “illiberality of those” who retaliated against him.[82]
Similarly, Federal Farmer No. 9 credits “some of the ablest members” of the Convention for their position on expanding the size of the representation in the House. The Federal Farmer specifically mentioned that these members urged that size of the House be increased from 65 to 130. It is no coincidence that Gerry is one of the few Convention delegates who consistently championed this issue of expanding the House beyond 65 members.[83] While the Federal Farmer didn’t specifically mention that Elbridge Gerry was one of these able members, there should be no doubt that this was an autobiographical reference by the Federal Farmer. Ultimately Gerry’s position prevailed when George Washington intervened in support of an expanded House on September 17.[84]
Another autobiographical example appears at the beginning of Federal Farmer No. 1, which regretted the fact that “many good republican characters” who were appointed to the Constitutional Convention declined to attend. For the Federal Farmer this was very unfortunate because had they attended he was pretty clear that the result would have been less aristocratic. There is no doubt that Gerry would have been less isolated at the Convention if these “republican” allies attended. Who better than Gerry, a dissenting delegate, to make this point?
Based on his minority view as at the Constitutional Convention, Gerry would have directly benefited if other nascent Antifederalist allies attended. As one of only three dissenters on September 17, Gerry knew better than anyone that “[t]he non-attendance of eight or nine men, who were appointed members of the convention, I shall ever consider as a very unfortunate event to the United States. – Had they attended, I am pretty clear that the result of the convention would not have had that strong tendency to aristocracy now discernable in every part of the plan.” Indeed, this is one of the few examples where the Federal Farmer repeatedly speaks in the first person.
Procedural arguments
Gerry was a commissioner to the Annapolis Convention in 1786, which adjourned before he arrived. Federal Farmer No. 1 was critical of the Annapolis Convention for “hastily” proposing a Convention “before the delegates from Massachusetts” had arrived. This reference in Federal Farmer No. 1 is also autobiographical. Likewise, Federal Farmer No. 1 complained that “not a word was said” about the Federalist goal of destroying the old Constitution. Gerry wrote to Ann that “nothing could have induced me to come here” if he had known what was going to happen.[85]
Both Gerry and the Federal Farmer warned that the Constitution’s supporters sought to “carry it thro by surprise” and “hastily” adopt. This aligns with Gerry’s concerns with the Annapolis Convention. Thus, this discussion in Federal Farmer No. 1 is autobiographical attribution evidence. Federal Farmer No. 1 also sets forth the procedural argument and recurring theme expressed by Gerry and the Federal Farmer that the ratification campaign should proceed coolly with caution and due deliberation.
Federal Farmer No. 1 criticized the “haste” to ratify. “Whatever may be the conduct of others, on the present occasion, I do not mean, hastily and positively to decide on the merits of the constitution proposed. I shall be open to conviction, and always disposed to adopt that which, all things considered, shall appear to me to be most for the happiness of the community. It must be granted, that if men hastily and blindly adopt a system of government, they will as hastily and as blindly be led to alter or abolish it.”
Federal Farmer No. 5 repeats the same argument, that the Federalists were “endeavoring to establish a great haste.” “The fact is, these aristocrats support and hasten the adoption of the proposed constitution, merely because they think it is a stepping stone to their favorite object.” “Men who wish the people of this country to determine for themselves, and deliberately to fit the government to their situation, must feel some degree of indignation at those attempts to hurry the adoption of a system, and to shut the door against examination. The very attempts create suspicions. that those who make them have secret views, or see some defects in the system, which, in the hurry of affairs. they expect will escape thee ye of a free people.”
On October 18, Gerry wrote to James Warren expressing this exact concern. “As the object of the Supporters of the Constitution is to carry it thro by surprise, it is hoped that the Legislature of Massachusetts will not propose a Convention till the next session…”[86]) On the same day, Gerry expressed the same warning to the Massachusetts legislature. “It is evident therefore, that they should not be precipitate in their decisions; that the subject should be well understood, let they should refuse to support the government, after having hastily accepted it.”
Correspondence with Governor Bowdoin
During the 1770s and 1780s Elbridge Gerry served as a delegate to the Continental and Confederation Congress. As a result, there is a robust record of his political views, including dozens of motions and detailed contemporaneous correspondence. In September of 1785 Gerry drafted a remarkable letter on behalf of the Massachusetts delegation to Governor James Bowdoin.[87] Gerry’s letter to Bowdoin is deemed to be particularly powerful attribution evidence as it provided a roadmap for Gerry’s October 18, 1787 letter to the Massachusetts legislature and the Federal Farmer essays. Click here (pending) for a link to a spreadsheet comparing Gerry’s 3 September 1785 and 18 October 1787 letters. The connections between the Federal Farmer and Gerry’s 1785 and 1787 letters are copied below:
- The themes of Gerry’s 9/3/1785 letter align with Gerry’s 10/18/1787 letter and the Federal Farmer. Gerry’s 9/3/1785 letter warns against a rush to increase Congressional power and weaken republican government at the urging of friends of Aristocracy. Gerry’s letter predicts that “intrigue or surprise” would be employed to obtain powers that state legislatures wouldn’t knowingly delegate.
- Gerry’s 9/3/1785 letter and the Federal Farmer warn against artful men/artfully laid plans to create aristocratic government.
- Both Gerry’s 9/3/1785 letter and the Federal Farmer repeatedly emphasize the importance of true republican principles. Gerry early correspondence with John Adams likewise focuses on republican principles. The Massachusetts Senate version’s of the Convention instructions referred to the “true Republican spirit and genius of the Articles….”
- Gerry argued in his 9/3/1785 letter that it was premature to call a Convention. Federal Farmer 4 argued that it was premature to deposit powers in the general government, particularly if they are undefined.
- Gerry used versions of the phrase “time only can determine” in the 9/3/1785 letter and in Federal Farmer No 1 and 18. He continued to use the phrase in subsequent correspondence.
- Gerry, the 9/3/1785 letter, and the Federal Farmer consistently emphasized that amendments to the articles should be unanimous.
- Gerry’s 9/3/1785 letter and the Federal Farmer warned against vague and unguarded language and delegations of power.
- Gerry’s 9/3/1785 letter and Federal Farmer 17 compare the “evils to be remedied,” which were being magnified as an excuse to grant power to Congress.
- Gerry’s 9/3/1785 letter and the Federal Farmer both use the phrase “designing men.” On May 31, Gerry is the first to use the phrase at the Convention.
- Gerry’s 9/3/1785 letter refers to “rotation of members” as perhaps the best check. The Federal Farmer repeatedly praises the advantages of rotation in office.
- Both Gerry’s 9/3/1785 letter and the Federal Farmer were distrustful of hereditary honors and the Cincinnati. Gerry’s hostility to the Cincinnati dates back to the mid 1780s.
- Both Gerry’s 9/3/1785 letter and the Federal Farmer are critical of standing armies. Gerry was a leading opponent of standing armies.
- Both Gerry’s 9/3/1785 letter and Federal Farmer No. 8 use the phrase “bulwark of their liberties.”
- Both Gerry’s 9/3/1785 letter and the Federal Farmer repeatedly use the phrase “it may be said” / “it is said, but….”
Substantive objections
As recognized by John Kaminski, Gerry’s oral objections at the Convention on September 15 and his written objections of October 18 appear to be “perfectly consistent” with all of the positions taken by the Federal Farmer. Click here (pending) for a link to a spreadsheet identifying all of Gerry’s objections, with cross references to the Federal Farmer essays and Gerry’s speeches at the Convention.
In his notes of the Convention Madison enumerated eleven objections raised by Gerry at the Convention on September 15. Rufus King’s notes identify another three objections. Depending on how Gerry’s objections are grouped together, his October 18 letter to the Massachusetts legislature identifies nine objections. Significantly, all of these objections appear in the Federal Farmer. Accordingly, the overlap between the Federal Farmer and the specific objections by Elbridge Gerry should be considered compelling evidence that the letters of the Federal Farmer were written by Gerry for the Massachusetts legislature, as the detailed explanation supporting his objections. Kaminski made this argument in 1998 and to date no scholars have been able to refute Kaminski’s thesis. To the contrary, the mounting evidence set forth above confirms Kaminski’s attribution.
This post will continue in Part 5 with a detailed discussion of the scores of stylistic fingerprints which connect Elbridge Gerry and the Federal Farmer. An example of a signature phrase consistently used by Gerry and the Federal Farmer is the argument that the Constitution did not adequately provide for “a representation of the people.” It turns out that Gerry uses this same phrase in his October 18th letter to the Massachusetts legislature. It also turns out that this term of art is enshrined in Chapter 1, Sec. 3 of the Massachusetts Constitution – and only appears in the Massachusetts Constitution.
Part 6 will set forth a detailed list of discrete arguments which align Gerry and the Federal Farmer, even if these arguments were not listed by Gerry as objections in September and October. Part 7 (pending) will compare the positions of the Federal Farmer with Gerry’s record in the First Federal Congress. Part 8 (pending) will conclude with a review of the academic literature and present evidence that Melancton Smith was Brutus and Plebeian, not the Federal Farmer.
Footnotes:
[1] Gerry was one of the first proponents of American Independence. Billias, xvi. According to William Pierce’s character sketches of the Convention delegates, “Mr. Gerry’s character is marked for integrity and perseverance.” He “cherishes as his first virtue, a love for his Country.” “Mr. Gerry is very much of a Gentleman in his principles and manners…” Farrand, 3:88.
[2] If Gerry’s son-in-law and first biographer is to be believed, Gerry opposed adoption of the 1812 Massachusetts districting bill. While he signed it into law, he did not believe that his “hostility to the project and his repugnance to its passage” would justify “the interposition of his negative.” James Trecothick Austin, The Life of Elbridge Gerry (Boston: Wells and Lilly, 1829), II, 347-348. See als0https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2024/07/gerrymandering-the-origin-story/
[3] This description would appear to be unattributed gossip relayed by William Lewis to Thomas Lee Shippen. Farrand, 3:104; The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 12, 7 August 1787 – 31 March 1788, ed. Julian P. Boyd. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955, pp. 228–234.
[4] Farrand, 2:588.
[5] Farrand, 2:617
[6] Farrand, 2:632.
[7] Farrand, 2:633.
[8] Gerry’s October 18 objections were widely printed in the newspapers beginning on 3 November 1787. While George Mason of Virginia informally circulated his objections after the Convention, they were not published until November 22, over his objection. 8 DHRC 41. The “Reasons of Dissent” of New York delegates Robert Yates and John Lansing were first published in January of 1788; Luther Martin of Maryland’s “Genuine Information” was first published on 28 December 1787. Although Virginia Governor Edmond Randolph’s “Reasons for Refusing His Signature” pre-date Gerry’s objections, they were not published until 27 December. 8 DHRC 51.
[9] Cite DHRC https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/recommendatory-amendments-from-state-conventions/
[10] 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), 285.
[11] Hutson, the long-serving chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, and teamed up with Rapport, an archivist with the National Archives, to update the official cannon of the Convention. Their book, The Supplement to Max Farrand’s The Records of the Federal Convention, quickly became an indispensable source for historians of the Convention.
[12] 4 DHRC xliv. As described below, Gerry would disagree with the term Antifederalist, as it is understood today.
[13] Federal Farner No. 6, for example, complains that advocates for the Constitution ought to have allowed it “to be adopted or rejected on account of its own merits or imperfections.”
[14] Federal Farmer No. 5.
[15] Federal Farmer No. 6.
[16] “No man, or at least very few, can at this day possess that invaluable treasure mens conscia recti as I firmly believe you do without being marked by detraction & ill nature.”
James Warren to Elbridge Gerry, 20 July 1788. https://asset.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/GFMFJD643HOSP8E/R/file-f5b6b.pdf#page=110
[17] John Adams to Cotton Tufts, 23 January 1788.
[18] James Madison to James T. Austin, 6 February 1832.
[19] Gerry to John Wendell, 14 September 1789.
[20] Gerry to Abigail Adams, 14 July 1797.
[21] RH Lee to Samuel Adams, 27 October 1787.
[22] 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), 280.
[23] 19 DHRC lvi; Kaminski, The Role of Newspapers, 280.
[24] Robert Allen Rutland, The Ordeal of the Constitution: The Antifederalists and the Ratification Struggle of 1787 – 1788 (Northeastern University Press, 1966), 21.
[25] 19 DHRC lvii.
[26] 19 DHRC 203.
[27] 20 DHRC 976.
[28] Elbridge Gerry and Thomas Greenleaf were descended from Enoch (b. 1617) and Mary Greenleaf. Enoch’s sons, Enoch and Joseph, were the great grandparents of Thomas Greenleaf and Elizabeth Greenleaf Gerry, making Elbridge Gerry and Thomas Greenleaf third cousins. James Edward Greenleaf, Genealogy of the Greenleaf Family (Boston: Frank Wood, Printer, 1896). Gerry’s biographer confirms the identify of Gerry’s parents, but doesn’t make the connection between Gerry and printer Thomas Greenleaf. Billias, 2.
[29] Thomas Greenleaf’s father, Joseph Greenleaf, was also a printer. Joseph entered the printing business late in life at age fifty-one when he sold the family farm in the early 1770s, using the proceeds to become a partner in Isaiah Thomas’ Massachusetts Spy. Joseph Greeleaf and his teenage son were likely inspired to enter the newspaper business by patriotic opposition to the British. Jeffrey L. Palsey, “Thomas Greenleaf: Printers and the Struggle for Democratic Politics and Freedom of the Press,” in Alfred F. Young, Gary B. Nash, Ray Raphael, eds., Revolutionary Founders: Rebels, Radicals, and Reformers in the Making of the Nation (Vintage Books, 2011), 358.
[30] Palsey, 358.
[31] Greenleaf likely responded to an ad seeking “an active, industrious person” to take over “management and direction” of the New York Journal and its attached print shop. Palsey, 360. The New York Journal belonged to Elizabeth Holt, the widow of New York printer John Holt. Her son-in-law, Eleazer Oswald, had been operating the paper remotely from Philadelphia where he printed the Independent Gazetteer. Both publications would become leading Antifederalist newspapers. Palsey, 360; 19 DHRC lx.
[32] 19 DHRC lvii-lviii. One can speculate that Gerry may have spoken with Greenleaf about his reservations about the Constitution in August of 1787, when Gerry briefly visited Ann in New York City. If so, the Gerry-Greenleaf discussions during the Convention would have been historic, indeed.
[33] 19 DHRC lxi.
[34] The Elmwood estate and related properties included 96 acres of land where Gerry “proceeded to operate the large estate and surrounding properties as a working plantation…” “Gerry set himself up as a country squire with tenant farmers on the acres he acquired in Cambridge in and around Elmwood. The area, noted for its fertile farmland, gardens, and fruit orchards, made it easy to attract farm labor.” Billias, 136.
[35] Pierre Marambaud, “Dickinson’s ‘Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania’ as Political Discourse: Ideology, Imagery, and Rhetoric.” Early American Literature, vol. 12, no. 1, 1977, 63–72.
[36] Elbridge Gerry to John Adams, 30 January 1797.
[37] The Federal Farmer discusses law and government in all thirteen states with the following frequency: NY 17x MA 13x, CN 9x, DE 8x, SC 8x, NJ 6x, VA 6x, PA 5x, RI 4x, GA 3x, MD 3x, NC 2x, NH 1x. Although the Federal Farmer cites to NY more than MA, this is not dispositive. As a merchant who was married to a New Yorker, Gerry had New York connections. He was likely also familiar with New York as a former member of Congress. It is also likely that Gerry wrote the first Federal Farmer essays in NY, before he returned to MA. Kaminski, “The Role of Newspapers,” 286-287.
[38] Gordon S. Wood, “The Authorship of the Letters from the Federal Farmer,” WMQ, 3rd ser. 31 (1974), 299–308.
[39] Wood reasoned that the Federal Farmer “was especially well versed in the provisions of the northern state constitutions, and his particular predilection for the unusual devices of the New York constitution points to the likelihood that he was a New yorker.” Nonetheless Wood warned that attributions “should be done with great caution and skepticism.” Wood, 308.
[40] 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), 280–92. See also 19 DHRC 203.
[41] Edmund S. Morgan, “The Puritan Ethic and the American Revolution,” WMQ, 3d series, XXIV (1967), 3-43.
[42] Billias 143-144.
[43] Billias, 26 citing Marblehead Town Records, Nov 25, 1772.
[44] Elbridge Gerry to George Washington, 26 July 1790.
[45] Elbridge Gerry to John Adams, 16 December 1799.
[46] Elbridge Gerry to Thomas Jefferson, 29 April 1801.
[47] “We are hardly recovered from a long and distressing war: The farmers, fishmen &c. have not yet fully repaired the waste made by it. Industry and frugality are again assuming their proper station.” (FF1)
[48] “….the other persons and orders in the community form the natural democracy: this includes in general the yeomanry, the subordinate officers, civil and military, the fishermen, mechanics and traders, many of the merchants and professional men.” (FF7)
[49] “…the yeomanry possess a large share of property and strength, are nervous and firm in their opinions and habits—the mechanics of towns are ardent and changeable, honest and credulous, they are inconsiderable for numbers, weight and strength, not always sufficiently stable for the supporting free governments: the fishing interest partakes partly of the strength and stability of the landed, and partly of the changeableness of the mechanic interest.” (FF7)
[50] “Gerry’s wharf, as it was familiarly known,” was a warehouse adjoining the town wharf “filled with fish, salt, wines, rum, and drygoods.” Billias, 124.
[51] Federal Farmer No. 4 explicitly quotes John Adams’ Defense as follows: “The few, the wellborn, &c. as Mr. Adams calls them, in judicial decisions as well as in legislation, are generally disposed, and very naturally too, to favour those of their own description.”
[52] Federal Farmer No. 7 paraphrases John Adams’ Defense as follows: “It is an observation, I believe, well founded, that the schools produce but few advocates for republican forms of government.” Storing, Complete Anti-Federalist, 2:354, n. 65.
[53] “The most remarkable feature of the delegation from proud Massachusetts was the absence of most of her justly famous sons.” John Adams was in London, represented by his Defense of the Constitutions of the US. Samuel Adams was in Boston “growing old and had to be represented by his lively friend Elbridge Gerry.” Rossiter, 1787, 82.
[54] Wood, 302.
[55] Kaminski, 287.
[56] Elbridge Gerry to John Adams, 23 November 1783.
[57] Farrand, 2:78.
[58] Farrand, 2:78.
[59] 4 DHRC xlv.
[60] Farrand, 1:388 (June 23).
[61] Farrand, 1:429 (June 26); 2:286 (August 14).
[62] Elbridge Gerry to John Adams, 24 August 1779.
[63] Federal Farmer No. 9. See also Federal Farmer No. 13.
[64] Wood at 308; Kaminski at 287.
[65] Wood at 302.
[66] In the closing week of the Convention Gerry expressed the objection that “[t]he sovereignty or liberty of the states will be destroyed.” Sept 15….Farrand, 2.
In his October 8 letter to the Massachusetts legislature, Gerry objected that the proposed Constitution “has few if any federal features, but is rather a system of national government.” Oct 18 letter, DHRC…..
These align with FF1: first paragraph “aim strongly to one consolidated government of the United States.” FF1: “The plan proposed appears to be partly federal, but principally however, calculated ultimately to make the states one consolidatedgovernment”; FF1 “it is clearly designed to make us one consolidated government”; FF1: “The idea of destroying, ultimately, the state government, and forming one consolidated system could not have been admitted….” FF1: “The third plan, or partial consolidation, is, in my opinion, the only one that can secure the freedom and happiness of this people.”
[67] Gerry outvoted on size of Congress…..
[68] Farrand, 2:644.
[69] 4 DHRC xliv.
[70] Elbridge Gerry to the Massachusetts Ratification Convention, 21 January 1788, Farrand, 3:263.
[71] Wood at 308; Kaminski, The Role of Newspapers in New York, 287.
[72] Federal Farmer 13.
[73] Farrand, 1:3; 1:17.
[74] Indeed, the Virginia Plan was formulated by Madison and the Virginia delegates beginning May 14, prior to the arrival of a quorum. The Fourth Resolution of the Virginia Plan proposed, among other things, that members of the House would be “ineligible to any office established by a particular state, or under the authority of the United States…” Farrand, 1:20.
[75] “Mr. Gerry thought the eligibility of members would have the effect of opening batteries agst. good officers, in order to drive them out & make way for members of the Legislature.” Farrand, 2:491.
[76] Storing, The Complete Antifederalist, 2:355, n. 100.
[77] DHRC
[78] Rutland, 67.
[79] Farrand, 2:647.
[80] Elbridge Gerry to John Adams, 25 April 1785 (“I frequently give You Information which I am sure cannot be less painful.”). Elbridge Gerry to John Hancock, 2 February 1789 (accepting election to First Federal Congress by stating that “….and without giving general satisfaction, any office to me would be extremely painful.”).
[81] As one of the three delegates who refused to sign the Constitution, he was called out by name and attacked by Federalists, including A Landholder. Gerry was a “frequent target of Federalist barbs,” including the charge that he was personally motivated by securing the redemption of continental currency. Klarman, The Founders’ Coup, 142.
[82] Elbridge Gerry to James Warren, 15 February 1789; Elbridge Gerry to Abigail Adams, 14 July 1797 (“I have never repented, a moment, of my vote on that occasion, & have since seen the constitution amended, as I wished, & the illiberality of those retaliated, who denied me the right of deliberating freely, & of exercising my judgment, when my country demanded it.”).
[83] For example, on July 7 Madison’s notes recount that: “Mr. Gerry was for increasing the number beyond 65. The larger the number the less the danger of their being corrupted. The people are accustomed to & fond of a numerous representation, and will consider their rights as better secured by it. The danger of excess in the number may be guarded agst. by fixing a point within which the number shall always be kept.” Farrand, 1:569.
[84] Farrand, 2:644.
[85] Elbridge Gerry to Ann Gerry, 26 August 1787.
[86] Elbridge Gerry to James Warren, 18 October 1787.
[87] Massachusetts delegation to Governor Bowdoin, 3 September 3, 1785.