Mystery Solved: Antifederalist Elbridge Gerry was the “Federal Farmer”
Overview of the Federal Farmer / Elbridge Gerry Authorship Thesis – the “FEAT”
(Uncovering the Federal Farmer – Part 3)
On the final day of the Constitutional Convention, thirty-eight delegates lined up to sign the Constitution.[1] Although their secretive work in Philadelphia was concluding, the next chapter in the national saga was just beginning. In September of 1787 the Constitution was merely a proposal on parchment. It would need to be ratified by nine states before it could take effect. By no means was this outcome guaranteed. Washington himself would privately acknowledge that “much will depend” on the abilities of its advocates and their “good pens.”[2]
Beginning on October 27, The Federalist essays began appearing in New York newspapers.[3] When Hamilton, Madison and Jay teamed up to write their eight-five essay masterpiece, they were no doubt concerned about the impact of Antifederalist essays which had already begun appearing in the papers opposing ratification. One of the most famous Antifederalist authors is the “Federal Farmer.” The eighteen Letters of the Federal Farmer have been described as “probably the single best Antifederalist statement during the entire ratification debate.”[4]
The Federal Farmer was widely quoted during the ratification debate and continues to be cited today. Yet, the identity of the Federal Farmer remains an open question. “By far, the most controversial and long-lived debate over the authorship of pseudonymous essays has centered around the Letters from the Federal Farmer.”[5] The mystery surrounding the Federal Farmer is particularly perplexing as the essays rank among the most “enduring American contributions to political thought and constitutional law.”[6]
This blog post, Uncovering the Federal Farmer (Part 3), is the third installment of a multi-part series attempting to demystify the Federal Farmer. Part 1 reported the uncovering of an unpublished manuscript by Elbridge Gerry which sheds new light on his identity as the Federal Farmer.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.[7]Part 3 sets forth the mounting evidence that Elbridge Gerry is in fact the Federal Farmer.
For the past two hundred years, historians generally assumed that the Federal Farmer was either Antifederalist Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith. Defying this conventional wisdom, in 1988, John P. Kaminski authored a paper suggesting that Elbridge Gerry was the Federal Farmer.[8] While Kaminski is one of the leading historians of the ratification of the Constitution, sadly, too many scholars fail to credit Gerry’s likely role as the Federal Farmer.
Part 3 builds on Kaminski’s attribution. Click here for a recent blog post by Kaminski. As described below, the evidence is now overwhelming that Elbridge Gerry was indeed the Federal Farmer. Part 3 makes the case that Gerry deserves to be elevated to the top echelon of the founding generation. Gerry was a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. Although he refused to sign the Constitution, Gerry played an indispensable role advocating for the Bill of Rights both publicly and pseudonymously as the Federal Farmer.
This exercise is particularly intriguing in light of the emerging details of the relationship between Elbridge Gerry, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris, the “penman of the Constitution.”[9] During the summer of 1787 all three leading delegates to the Constitution Convention boarded at Miss Dalley’s boarding house on Market Street in Philadelphia. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania recently recognized Miss Dalley’s boarding house as the “Constitution House.”[10] Thus, if the Gerry-Federal Farmer attribution is correct, it follows that both Publius and the Federal Farmer boarded together with Miss Dalley. There can be little doubt that their shared housing arrangements at the Constitution House afforded Hamilton, Morris and Gerry opportunities to deliberate after hours following the daily sessions at Independence Hall.[11] One can only speculate how these discussions may have subsequently shaped their authorship of the dueling Federalist and Federal Farmer essays.
Gerry’s dissent and the Kaminski Federal Farmer attribution
Elbridge Gerry actively participated in deliberations during the early months of the Constitutional Convention. He delivered over one hundred speeches and proposed fifty-five motions, the fourth highest of the Convention delegates.[12]Nevertheless, in August he became increasingly disillusioned with the emerging Constitution.[13] On September 15, Gerry enumerated his objections and declared on the floor of the Convention that he would be dissenting. Despite last minute efforts to gain his support, on September 17 Gerry was one of three remaining delegates who refused to sign the Constitution.
While it was “painful” for him to do so, Gerry formally went public with his objections on October 18th. Gerry’s letter to the Massachusetts legislature explaining the reasons for his dissent was widely printed in the papers, making Gerry the target of Federalist backlash.[14] While Gerry’s oral objections at the Convention are not identical to the written objections in his October 18th letter, there is substantial overlap.[15]
The alignment of Gerry’s objections with the arguments of the Federal Farmer is a primary basis of Kaminski’s attribution. For Kaminski, Gerry’s October 18 letter “was either a summary of or an outline for” the Federal Farmer. “All of the issues raised in the letter were developed in the [Federal Farmer] pamphlet.” Kaminski also argues that the “style, tone and wording” of Gerry’s October 18 letter and the Federal Farmer are “quite similar.”
His letter to the Massachusetts legislature was not the only letter Gerry wrote on October 18. In a second letter dated October 18 Gerry wrote to James Warren, the Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, indicating that he would subsequently submit his reasons for dissenting from the Convention.[16] Yet, prior to the receipt of Gerry’s detailed reasons, the Massachusetts legislature voted to convene a state ratification convention in January of 1788. Kaminski argues that once the state convention was called, “there was no longer a need for Gerry to submit his amplified objections to the legislature. Consequently, Gerry’s objections morphed into the first Federal Farmer pamphlet.”[17]Kaminski theorizes that Gerry might have believed that he fulfilled his obligation to the Massachusetts legislature “by anonymously publishing his reasons for opposing the Constitution,” as the Federal Farmer.[18]
In addition to the similarities between Gerry’s October 18 letter and the Federal Farmer, Kaminski also points to Gerry’s relative moderation compared to other Antifederalist polemicists. Furthermore, Kaminski notes that the positions taken by the Federal Farmer were “perfectly consistent” with the stances Gerry took at the Constitutional Convention.[19] The fact that the Federal Farmer had access to insider information from the Convention is also cited by Kaminski in support of his Gerry-Federal Farmer attribution.
Overview of additional “new” attribution evidence (the “FEAT”)
While Kaminski’s attribution is in itself compelling, Statutesandstories has uncovered additional evidence which helps confirm the conclusion that Elbridge Gerry was in fact the Federal Farmer. Newly assembled evidence falls into the following categories outlined below. While no single category 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”):
- Determination to “leave no stone unturned”: As described in Part 1, a long overlooked “11th letter” from Gerry to his wife was recently re-discovered. Consistent with his rising frustration in August of 1787, Gerry confided 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. Indeed, multiple members of the founding generation shared the view that Gerry’s character was marked by his “integrity and perseverance” which arguably would have motived Gerry to vigorously but respectfully oppose the Constitution during the ratification campaign. [20]
- Greenleaf family relationship: Elbridge Gerry is related to Thomas Greenleaf, the publisher of the Federal Farmer pamphlets. In fact, Greenleaf was originally from Massachusetts even though he subsequently relocated to New York after the Revolutionary War.
- Gerry’s purchase of Elmwood estate in 1787: Although historians commonly describe Elbridge Gerry as a merchant, he purchased a sprawling farm in 1787. The fact that Gerry became a gentleman farmer immediately before the Constitutional Convention helps explain the use of the Federal Farmer pseudonym.
- Massachusetts references: Elbridge Gerry was from Massachusetts. The Federal Farmer consistently grounded his arguments with examples from Massachusetts. In hindsight it should not be surprising that multiple, specific citations to substantive provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution have recently been uncovered in the Federal Farmer essays. For example, when Federal Farmer 5 wrote that our countrymen are entitled to “a government of laws and not of men,” he was quoting from Article XXX of the Massachusetts Constitution, without attribution. Similarly, several of Gerry’s (and the Federal Farmer’s) objections involving the blending of powers dovetail with prohibitions in the Massachusetts Constitution.
- Gerry’s Convention timeline: The Federal Farmer didn’t merely have access to insider information from the Convention. The discrete Convention details known to the Federal Farmer perfectly align with Gerry’s timeline as a Convention delegate. For example, Both Gerry and the Federal Farmer favored making legislators ineligible for appointments. Gerry arrived late at the Convention on May 29, after this topic had been debated. Federal Farmer 13 indicates that he had been “assured” that this topic had been “established by the convention after long debate,” but was unfortunately revisited. This is strong evidence that the Federal Farmer was not present during the first week of the convention, which perfectly aligns with Gerry’s convention timeline.
- Correspondence with Governor Bowdoin: Elbridge Gerry served as a delegate to the Continental/Confederation Congress for six years, resulting in a robust record of his political views. Among dozens of motions and letters, Gerry drafted a remarkable letter on behalf of the Massachusetts delegation to Governor James Bowdoin on September 3, 1785. 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.
- Autobiographical connections: In several cases, the arguments and references by the Federal Farmer are arguably autobiographical. For example, Federal Farmer 6 identifies Gerry by name, along with Mason and Lee who were being treated with “indecent virulence” by ardent Federalists.[21] Similarly, Federal Farmer 9 credits “some of the ablest members” of the Convention for their position on expanded representation in the House. It is no coincidence that Gerry is one of the few Convention delegates who consistently championed this issue. The Federal Farmer 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 “I am pretty clear” that the result would have been less aristocratic. Who better than Gerry, a dissenting delegate, to make this point?
- Unexpected Antifederalist arguments: While the arguments by the Federal Farmer were generally embraced by other Antifederalists, this was not always the case. Instances where Gerry and the Federal Farmer diverged from other Antifederalists are particularly instructive. Examples of daylight between the Federal Farmer/Gerry and other Antifederalists, include support for per capita voting in the Senate, disagreement over the re-eligibility of the President to stand for reelection, and relative moderation[22] by the Federal Farmer/Gerry compared to other Antifederalists.
- Procedural arguments: Both Gerry and the Federal Farmer warned that the Constitution’s supporters sought to “carry it thro by surprise” and “hastily” adopt it. Gerry was a commissioner to the Annapolis Convention, which adjourned before he arrived. The Federal Farmer was critical of the Annapolis Convention for “hastily” proposing a Convention to assemble in May of 1787 “before the delegates from Massachusetts” had arrived. Similarly, the Federal Farmer complained that “not a word was said” about destroying the old Constitution. This aligns with Gerry’s admission that “nothing could have induced me to come here” if he had known what was going to happen.
- Substantive arguments: As recognized by Kaminski, Gerry’s oral objections 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.
- Stylistic Fingerprints: In addition to Gerry’s procedural and substantive arguments, the Federal Farmer essays are replete with Gerry’s unmistakable “fingerprints” – word combinations and patterns reflective of Gerry signature linguistic style. For example, Gerry and the Federal Farmer consistently argued that the Constitution did not adequately provide for “a representation of the people.” This signature phrase is used in the Massachusetts Constitution and was a major and recurring theme for Gerry during and after the Convention. During the Convention Gerry worried about the danger of the people being misled by “designing men” and the risk of the people becoming the “dupes of pretended patriots.” This phrase is repeated in Federal Farmer 1, 3, 4 and 17. Gerry and the Federal Farmer likewise warned of the risk of becoming “dupes of artifice,” as “pretended federalists” were seeking the abolition of state governments. Click here (pending) for a link to a spreadsheet identifying Gerry’s fingerprints, with cross references to the Federal Farmer essays.
- Gerry’s record at the first Federal Congress: 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.
As described by Gordon Wood, attribution of authorship for pseudonymous writings is “a difficult business.”[23] In 1974, Wood challenged the longstanding view that Richard Henry Lee was the Federal Farmer. In so doing, Wood fully recognized that the process of attributing authorship is “a business of great responsibility,” as accepted attributions tend to get bound in the literature and taken for granted over time. Wood concluded that, “[b]arring some unforeseen manuscript discovery, the authorship of the Letters from the Federal Farmer will probably never be definitively known.”
When the six volumes of The Complete Anti-Federalist were compiled in 1981, Herbert Storing understood that “Gerry played no major role” in the ratification debates.[24] In 1998, when John Kaminski initially proposed his Gerry – Federal Farmer attribution, the prevailing wisdom was that Melancton Smith was the Federal Farmer.[25] Kaminski offered that Gerry was a “better” candidate. As an appropriately cautious scholar, Kaminski tentatively couched his proposed attribution as his “best guess.” Nevertheless, it is now time to celebrate Gerry as Federal Farmer.
This post continues in Part 4 (pending) – the Federal Farmer / Elbridge Gerry – Federal Farmer Authorship Thesis (“FEAT”). Part 4 will examine the detailed and mounting evidence that the longstanding mystery over the identify of the Federal Farmer has been solved. It is anticipated that independent scholarly review of Part 4 will support the conclusion that Kaminski’s attribution that Elbridge Gerry was the Federal Farmer is now settled. In other words, Elbridge Gerry’s “FEAT” of drafting the Federal Farmer should put to rest the conventional wisdom that Melancton Smith (or Richard Henry Lee) were the Federal Farmer. It is hoped that widespread acceptance of the Gerry FEAT Thesis will elevate Gerry to the upper echelon of the founding generation. Gerry in fact left no stone unturned in his efforts to prevent measures which he predicted would produce “the most fatal consequences” if adopted without amendment.
Gerry was an ardent patriot from the early days of the Revolutionary War through his death in office as the fifth Vice President of the United States. When students study passages of the Federalist Papers together with the Federal Farmer, Elbridge Gerry’s name should be identified alongside Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay.
Endnotes
[1] The Constitution contains thirty-nine signatures. Although John Dickinson was not present on September 17, he authorized James Read to sign on his behalf. David O. Stewart, The Summer of 1787 (Simon & Schuster, 2007), 241, citing John Dickinson to James Read, September 15, 1787.
[2] George Washington to David Humphreys, 10 October 1787.
[3] 19 DHRC 540.
[4] John P. Kaminski, “The Role of Newspapers in New York’s Debate Over the Federal Constitution,” (the “Kaminski Attribution”) in Stephen L. Schechter and Richard B. Bernstein, eds., New York and the Union (Albany, 1990), 285; 19 DHRC 203.
[5] Kaminski Attribution, 285.
[6] Kaminski Attribution, 285
[7] Joseph C. Morton, Shapers of the Great Debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (Greenwood Press, 2005), 107; Richard Beeman, Plain, Honest Men (New York: Random House, 2009), 356.
[8] Kaminski Attribution, 280.
[9] Click here for a link to the “Hamilton-Gerry Nexus Hypothesis” which theorizes that Hamilton and Gerry may have choreographed a series of unexpected motions at the Constitutional Convention on September 10. The hypothesis is based on evidence of a surprising alignment between Alexander Hamilton and Elbridge Gerry in the final week of the Convention. Click here for a link to the “Washington Gambit Hypothesis” which argues that George Washington’s last-minute intervention on September 17 at the Convention was specifically orchestrated to facilitate compromise. The Gambit Hypothesis asserts that Washington broke his silence in a purposeful, but unsuccessful effort to accommodate the three dissenting delegates, Elbridge Gerry, George Mason and Edmund Randolph.
[10] The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (the “PHMC”) voted on June 5, 2025 to install a historic marker recognizing Miss Dalley’s boarding house as the “Constitution House.” Click here for a link to the marker application to the PHMC.
[11] Alexander Hamilton invited Gouverneur Morris to co-write the Federalist Papers with him. Due to the press of other business Morris declined. Farrand, 3:421 (“I was warmly pressed by Hamilton to assist in writing the Federalist, which I declined.”).
[12] https://csac.history.wisc.edu/2025/04/01/identifying-the-federal-farmer-unravelling-the-mystery-of-an-antifederalist-treasure/
[13] On September 9, Gerry confided to his wife Ann that, “I am myself of opinion that Thursday will finish the Business to which I have every prospect at present of giving my negative.” For a summary of Gerry’s activity during the Convention see 4 DHRC xliii-xliv.
[14] 4 DHRC 96, 98.
[15] The convention notes taken by James Madison are similar but not identical to the notes taken by Rufus King. For example, King’s notes on September 15 indicate that Gerry had “[m]any other objections which he would not enumerate.” Farrand, 2:635. It is thus likely that Gerry’s verbal objections recorded by James Madison were not intended to be exhaustive.
[16] 4 DHRC 95.
[17] https://csac.history.wisc.edu/2025/04/01/identifying-the-federal-farmer-unravelling-the-mystery-of-an-antifederalist-treasure/
[18] Kaminski Attribution, 286.
[19] Kaminski Attribution, 287.
[20] Most famously, Georgia delegate William Pierce observed that “Mr. Gerry’s character is marked for integrity and perseverance.” Farrand, 3:88. As early as 1777, Gerry had already developed a well-known reputation for integrity. Billias at 76, citing Mifflin to Gerry, 5 October 1777. John Adams similarly wrote of Gerry that, “I know of scarcely any man of more address, more industry or perseverance.” John Adams to Mercy Warren, 6 May 1785.
[21] The initial publication of Federal Farmer 6 spelled out the names, Mason, Gerry and Lee. Subsequent publications abbreviated their names: M-N, G-Y, L-E.
[22] Scholars in the Melancton Smith attribution camp commonly point to Smith’s moderation when he ultimately decided to vote to ratify the Constitution at the New York ratification convention. Yet, Kaminski persuasively argues that “Smith’s ardency in favoring previous amendments abated only after news arrived in the New York Convention on 2 July 1788 that Virginia had ratified the Constitution—well after both Federal Farmer pamphlets had been published.” Kaminski Attribution at 287 and Kaminski blog post: https://csac.history.wisc.edu/2025/04/01/identifying-the-federal-farmer-unravelling-the-mystery-of-an-antifederalist-treasure/
[23] Gordon S. Wood, The Authorship of the Letters from the Federal Farmer, WMQ 3rd ser. 31 (1974), 299–308.
[24] Storing, The Complete Anti-Federalist, 2:8.
[25] Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution (New York: Knopf, 1996), 229.