{"id":17390,"date":"2025-05-23T18:43:57","date_gmt":"2025-05-23T22:43:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/?p=17390"},"modified":"2025-09-29T11:56:51","modified_gmt":"2025-09-29T15:56:51","slug":"mystery-solved-antifederalist-elbridge-gerry-was-the-federal-farmer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/mystery-solved-antifederalist-elbridge-gerry-was-the-federal-farmer\/","title":{"rendered":"Mystery Solved: Antifederalist Elbridge Gerry was the \u201cFederal Farmer\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mystery Solved: Antifederalist Elbridge Gerry was the \u201cFederal Farmer\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

(Uncovering the Federal Farmer – Part 2)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

During the debate over the ratification of the Constitution writers routinely used pseudonyms to conceal their identity. The most famous essays promoting ratification are the widely acclaimed Federalist Papers<\/em> written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay under the shared pseudonym Publius<\/em>. By contrast, the works of the Antifederalists are less well known. Antifederalist writings only became broadly available beginning in the 1960s.[1]<\/a> Yet, historians invariably agree that one of the most consequential Antifederalist authors was the \u201cFederal Farmer.\u201d[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

Throughout the ratification campaign, the letters of the Federal Farmer were well respected by Federalists and Antifederalists alike. A Virginian colleague of Thomas Jefferson touted the Federal Farmer as \u201creputed to be the best of anything that has been written\u201d against the Constitution.[3]<\/a> Alexander Hamilton acknowledged in Federalist<\/em> 68 that the Federal Farmer was the \u201cmost plausible\u201d of the Antifederalist critics.[4]<\/a> Federalist praise included the recognition that the Federal Farmer wrote \u201cwith more candor and good sense\u201d than other Antifederalists.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

After the Constitution was ratified in 1788, the Federal Farmer was cited as an authority during floor debates in Congress.[6]<\/a> Indeed, the Federal Farmer continues to be regularly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, along with the Federalist Papers<\/em>.[7]<\/a> Yet, the Federal Farmer never publicly identified himself. This blog post, Uncovering the Federal Farmer – Part 2<\/strong><\/span>, is the second installment of a multi-part series demystifying the Federal Farmer. Part 1<\/strong><\/span> <\/a>reported the re-discovery of an unpublished manuscript by Elbridge Gerry which sheds light on the identity of the Federal Farmer.<\/p>\n

Part 2 begins with an overview of the letters of the Federal Farmer. After surveying the scholarship about the Federal Farmer, Part 2 continues with a discussion of Elbridge Gerry, the elusive founding father who was one of the Constitutional Convention\u2019s most outspoken and \u201cconsistently contrary\u201d delegates.[8]<\/a> Part 2 concludes with a preview of emerging evidence supporting the attribution that Elbridge Gerry was the Federal Farmer. Part 3<\/strong><\/span><\/a> will summarize the mounting evidence supporting the Gerry attribution.<\/p>\n

The Federal Farmer<\/em><\/p>\n

Historians consistently describe the Federal Farmer as arguably the most well-respected and important Antifederalist essayist.[9]<\/a> His reputation is often associated with the \u201ctemperate and learned nature of his commentary.\u201d[10]<\/a> The Federal Farmer \u201cavoided the shrill alarmism of other Anti-Federalists.\u201d[11]<\/a> The work of the Federal Farmer was \u201cwell written and reasoned,\u201d \u201cone of the more moderate sets of essays criticizing the proposed Constitution.\u201d[12]<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n


\n<\/a>Unlike other essayists who routinely appeared in newspapers, the Federal Farmer\u2019s letters were initially published in two consecutively numbered pamphlets.[13]<\/a> It is curious – and unclear – why the Federal Farmer debuted as a pamphlet. One possible explanation is that the Federal Farmer might have struggled to find printers willing to publish his work. Alternatively, the author might have wanted to minimize backlash resulting from the mass circulation of his essays.<\/p>\n

The first pamphlet of Federal Farmer essays, Observations Leading to a Fair Examination of the System of Government Proposed by the Last Convention; and to Several Essential and Necessary Alterations in It. In a Number of Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican<\/em> (\u201cObservations\u201d) was published in November of 1787. The Federal Farmer\u2019s Observations consisted of five purported letters dated between October 8 to October 13, 1787.[14]<\/a> A second Federal Farmer pamphlet, An Additional Number of Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican<\/em> (\u201cAdditional Observations\u201d) was published in May of 1788 containing thirteen additional letters dated between December 25, 1787 and January 25, 1788.[15]<\/a> The Federal Farmer pamphlets went through multiple reprintings, but were not widely printed by Federalist newspaper publishers.[16]<\/a> Federal Farmer Number 1, a letter dated October 8, first appeared in the Poughkeepsie, New York, Country Journal<\/em> newspaper in weekly installments from 14 November 1787 to 2 January 1788.[17]<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Elbridge Gerry<\/em><\/p>\n

When the framers of the Constitution arrived in Philadelphia in May of 1787, few delegates had more prestige across America than Elbridge Gerry. With political experience at both the state and national levels Gerry brought a reputation as a \u201ctried-and-true republican\u201d and the credentials of a signatory to both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation.[18]<\/a> Although he ultimately declined to add his name to the final draft, many of the Constitution\u2019s provisions were in fact proposed by Gerry.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Entering into the Convention, one of Gerry\u2019s primary concerns was the risk of an \u201cexcess of democracy\u201d and the anarchy of mob rule. In the aftermath of Shays\u2019 Rebellion, Gerry worried that \u201cthe people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots.\u201d[19]<\/a> In his first Convention speech Gerry objected to portions of the Virginia Plan which would replace the federal<\/em> government with a national<\/em> government.[20]<\/a> The following day, Gerry admitted that he has been \u201ctoo republican heretofore,\u201d but he was still a republican who had been taught by recent experience of \u201cthe danger of the levilling spirit.\u201d[21]<\/a> Thus, Gerry balanced his fear of democracy with \u201can equally strong suspicion of elites,\u201d making him warry of both aristocracy and mob rule.[22]<\/a><\/p>\n

Notwithstanding his reservations, Gerry actively participated in the Convention\u2019s deliberations. As one of the most prolific speakers, he proposed fifty-five motions, the fourth highest of the Convention delegates.[23]<\/a> Gerry consistently expressed concerns during the Convention about excessive power which he felt was being vested in the proposed new government. As a New Englander intimately familiar with the Spirit of ’76, Gerry was \u201cdriven by a nearly pathological fear of the misuse of power.\u201d[24]<\/a> Among his Convention peers, Gerry was one of the most outspoken in denouncing the evils of concentration of power in the hands of the \u201cfew.\u201d[25]<\/a> Gerry has been described as the \u201cmost consistently contrary\u201d of his peers and the Convention\u2019s most \u201cornery delegate.\u201d A fellow delegate described Gerry as a \u201cman of sense, but a Grumbletonian,\u201d who objected to \u201cevery thing that he did not propose.\u201d[26]<\/a><\/p>\n

In mid-August, Gerry became disillusioned with the emerging draft of the Constitution.[27]<\/a> While he began the Convention as a \u201cmild nationalist,\u201d he began parting ways with the co-delegates over a number of concerns that he openly communicated to his colleagues. As described in letters to his wife Ann, Gerry decided in the last month of the Convention that he would likely not be supporting the Constitution without amendments. For example, on August 26 Gerry wrote to Ann that:<\/p>\n

\u00a0I am exceedingly distrest at the proceedings of the Convention<\/em>\u00a0being apprehensive, and almost sure they will\u00a0if not altered materially lay the foundation of a civil War.<\/em>\u2026 I never was more sick of any thing than I am of conventioneering: had I known what would have happened, nothing would have induced me to come here.<\/em>\u00a0I am and must be patient a little longer.<\/p>\n

On September 9, Gerry confided in Ann that, \u201cI am myself of opinion that Thursday will finish the Business to which I have\u00a0every prospect at present of giving my negative<\/em>.\u201d Click here<\/strong><\/span> <\/a>for a discussion of Gerry\u2019s letters to Ann, including Gerry\u2019s recently re-discovered \u201c11th<\/sup> letter\u201d which committed to \u201cleave no stone unturned\u201d to prevent the Constitution\u2019s adoption.<\/p>\n

In the final days of the Convention Gerry identified a list of his objections which forced him to \u201cwithhold his name\u201d from the Constitution.[28]<\/a> Nonetheless, Gerry expressed the hope that the Constitution would be amended during a \u201csecond general Convention.\u201d The day the Constitution was signed, September 17th<\/sup>, Gerry, George Mason and Edmund Randolph were the only attending dissenters. Of these three, Gerry was the only non-signer from New England.<\/p>\n

During the ratification campaign, historians classify Gerry as a moderate Antifederalist from the \u201cwell-to-do wing of Antifederalism,\u201d an influential but relatively small portion of the Antifederalist opposition.[29]<\/a> Favoring ratification with amendments, \u201cGerry was not a die-hard rejectionist.\u201d[30]<\/a> Indeed, it was Gerry who chaired the \u201cgrand\u201d committee that gave rise to the critical compromise between large and small states, the so called \u201cGreat Compromise,\u201d without which the Convention may have failed.[31]<\/a><\/p>\n

Identity of the Federal Farmer<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Until the 1970s historians believed, without hard evidence, that Antifederalist Richard Henry Lee was the Federal Farmer. Lee was a well-respected member of Congress from Virginia who had been appointed as a delegate to the Convention. Unfortunately for Elbridge Gerry, Lee declined to attend the Convention along with a handful of other early Antifederalists. Most famously, Patrick Henry also refused to attend, smelling a rat.[32]<\/a> In Lee\u2019s case, he felt that it was improper to help prepare a document that he would be called upon to approve as a member of Congress. He also cited health concerns.[33]<\/a><\/p>\n

In late September Lee helped lead the opposition when Congress began deliberating what to do with the proposed new Constitution. For Lee, the Convention had committed \u201cconstitutional impropriety\u201d by attempting to set aside the Articles of Confederation. Lee would become a vocal Antifederalist leader, who presented a detailed set of proposed amendments.[34]<\/a> But was Lee in fact the Federal Farmer?<\/p>\n

In a 1974, Gordon Wood and other historians began questioning the long-standing Lee attribution. While Wood convincingly demonstrated that Lee was not the Federal Farmer, Wood did not offer an alternative attribution. Wood merely suggested that the Federal Farmer was likely from New York.[35]<\/a> Over the past fifty years many historians have come to believe that New Yorker, Melancton Smith, was the Federal Farmer. Sadly many contemporary writers continue to list Lee and\/or Smith as the Federal Farmer.<\/p>\n

In 1988, John P. Kaminski floated an alternative. Although Kaminski set forth a compelling case that Gerry was the Federal Farmer, too many authors continue to rely on outdated Lee and Smith attributions, rather than citing Kaminski and his authoritative Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. <\/em>In Part 1<\/strong><\/a> <\/span>Statutesandstories uncovered Elbridge Gerry\u2019s unpublished “11th<\/sup> letter,” which provides additional evidence supporting Kaminski\u2019s attribution.<\/p>\n

This blog post continues in Part 3<\/strong><\/a><\/span>\u00a0which will explore a growing body of evidence supporting the Gerry-Federal Farmer attribution. For example, emerging genealogical evidence indicates that Elbridge Gerry was related to Thomas Greenleaf, the New York publisher of the Federal Farmer<\/em> pamphlets.\u00a0Although it is commonly assumed that Gerry was only a merchant, he in fact became a gentleman farmer prior to the Convention, after the purchase of a working farm and sprawling estate in 1787. Moreover, Federal Farmer <\/em>letter 4 quotes John Dickinson’s Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania<\/em>, which was well known by the founding generation. Thus the choice of the Federal Farmer pseudonym comes into sharper focus.<\/p>\n

One of the reasons for the Melancton Smith attribution as the Federal Farmer is the author\u2019s citation to provisions of the New York Constitution. It turns out, however, that a close examination of the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution reveals an equal affinity by the Federal Farmer for Gerry\u2019s home state. \u00a0Future posts will identify scores of Gerry fingerprints and other evidence, proving the adage, \u201ctanquam ex ungue leonem,<\/em>\u201d that a lion can be recognized by his claws.[36]<\/a><\/p>\n

This blog continues with Part 3, <\/strong><\/span><\/a>which summarizes the mounting evidence supporting the Gerry attribution.<\/p>\n

Endnotes<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Historian, Paul Leicester Ford, began the process of compiling Antifederalist works in the nineteenth century. Ford assembled fourteen ratification era essays in his Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States<\/em>\u00a0(Brooklyn, 1888). Ford added another seventeen works into the Antifederalist canon with his\u00a0Essays on the Constitution<\/em>\u00a0(Brooklyn: Historical Printing Club, 1892). In 1965, Morton Borden published The Anti-Federalist Papers<\/em> (1965), eighty-five Antifederalist essays intended to illustrate Antifederalist responses to each of the eight-five Federalist Papers<\/em>. While some historians considered Borden\u2019s organization of The Anti-Federalist Papers<\/em> to be \u201coverly contrived,\u201d Borden succeeded in bringing attention and scholarship to overlooked Antifederalist sources. Cecilia M. Kenyon also shined light on the subject with The Antifederalists <\/em>(1965). Historians Jackson Turner Main and Forrest McDonald further bolstered Antifederalist scholarship. Jackson T. Main, The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-178<\/em>8 (Chapel Hill, 1961); Forrest McDonald, “The Anti-Federalists, 1781-1789,” Wisconsin Magazine of History, 46 (1963), 206-214. In 1981 Herbert J. Storing published seven volumes of Antifederalist materials under the ambitious title, The Complete Anti-Federalist<\/em>. Starting in 1976, Merrill Jensen, John P. Kaminski and Gaspare J. Saladino began the monumental process of assembling into over 40 volumes the authoritative Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights<\/em> (hereinafter the DHRC<\/em>).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 According to the editors of the DHRC<\/em>, the Federal Farmer represented \u201c[t]he best Antifederalist writing on the Constitution.\u201d 19 DHRC<\/em> 203. Other editors have agreed that \u201c[t]he Constitution\u2019s most sustained critique came from the Letters from the Federal Farmer.\u201d Robert J. Allison & Bernard Bailyn, eds., The Essential Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches and Writings <\/em>(New York: The Library of America, 2018). Similarly, for Herbert J. Storing the Observations<\/em> of the Federal Farmer \u201care generally, and correctly, considered to be one of the ablest Anti-Federal pieces\u2026\u201d The Complete Anti-Federalist<\/em>, 2:214.<\/p>\n

Political scientist, Michael J. Farber, suggests that the essays of Brutus<\/em> were the \u201cmost effective and direct response to Publius<\/em> and other Federalist writers\u2026.\u201d Nevertheless, Farber argues that \u201cthe most elegant and compelling case against ratification was made by the Federal Farmer,\u201d who offered \u201ca cogent and concise critique of the Constitution.\u201d Michael J. Farber, An Anti-Federalist Constitution: The Development of Dissent<\/em> (University Press of Kansas, 2019), 37.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Edward Carrington to Thomas Jefferson, 20 DHRC<\/em> 978.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Federalist <\/em>No. 68.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In an unsigned contemporaneous review in the American Magazine<\/em>, Noah Webster is believed to have opined that the Federal Farmer wrote \u201cwith more candor and good sense\u201d than most other Antifederalist authors. Webster also complimented the Federal Farmer\u2019s \u201cmany judicious remarks,\u201d notwithstanding fatiguing repetitions. Similarly, 18th<\/sup>century jurist James Kent agreed that the Federal Farmer illustrated the Constitution\u2019s defects in a \u201ccandid & rational manner.\u201d James Kent to Nathanial Lawrence, 19 DHRC<\/em> 206.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Federal Gazette<\/em>, 23 March 1796 (containing the March 18 debate in the House of Representatives and identifying the Federal Farmer as \u201ca writer of considerable celebrity\u201d); American Intelligencer<\/em>, 10 May 1796 (describing the Federal Farmer as a \u201cdistinguished writer of the day).<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 See e.g., SEC v. Jarkesy<\/em>, 603 U.S. 109, 148 (2024), Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon<\/em>, 473 U.S. 234, 271 (1985).<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Joseph C. Morton, Shapers of the Great Debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787<\/em> (Greenwood Press, 2005), 107; Richard Beeman, Plain, Honest M<\/em>en (New York: Random House, 2009), 356.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 David J. Siemers, The Antifederalists: Men of Great Faith and Forbearance<\/em> (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 192.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Siemers, 192.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Jack N. Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution<\/em> (New York: Knopf, 1996), 229.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bruce Frohnen, The Anti-Federalists: Selected Writings and Speeches<\/em> (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2001), 141.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 19 DHRC<\/em> 203. Publication by pamphlet may have been intended to result in a broader circulation than newspaper publication.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 19 DHRC<\/em> 203.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 20 DHRC<\/em> 976.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 19 DHRC<\/em> 203-206.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 19 DHRC<\/em> 206.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Clinton Rossiter, 1787 The Grand Convention<\/em> (New York: Macmillian, 1966), 86.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Richard Beeman, Plain, Honest Men<\/em> (New York: Random House, 2009), 113-114.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Farrand,1:34, 42.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Farrand, 1:48.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Klarman, 142.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 https:\/\/csac.history.wisc.edu\/2025\/04\/01\/identifying-the-federal-farmer-unravelling-the-mystery-of-an-antifederalist-treasure\/<\/a><\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Beeman, 113.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Beeman, 113.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Farrand, 3:104.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4 DHRC<\/em> xliv.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Farrand: 2, 632.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Jackson Turner Main, The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution<\/em> (1961), 177.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Michael Allen Gillespie & Michael Lienesch, eds., Ratifying the Constitution<\/em> (University of Kansas, 1989), 148.<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Michael J. Klarman, The Framers\u2019 Coup <\/em>(Oxford University Press, 2016), 142; Morton, 110.<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Storing, 2:111.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Storing, 111.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Beeman, 372.<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Gordon S. Wood, The Authorship of the Letters from the Federal Farmer<\/em>.\u00a0WMQ<\/em>\u00a03rd ser. 31 (1974): 299\u2013308.<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In 1697 Isaac Newton anonymously submitted a solution to a math competition. Upon reviewing Newton\u2019s solution, Jean Bernoulli is believed to have exclaimed, \u201ctanquam ex ungue leonem\u201d (we recognize the lion by his claw).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mystery Solved: Antifederalist Elbridge Gerry was the \u201cFederal Farmer\u201d (Uncovering the Federal Farmer – Part 2) During the debate over…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17390"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17390"}],"version-history":[{"count":25,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17390\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17833,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17390\/revisions\/17833"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17390"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17390"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17390"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}