{"id":17557,"date":"2025-07-19T10:53:32","date_gmt":"2025-07-19T14:53:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/?p=17557"},"modified":"2025-08-01T10:55:11","modified_gmt":"2025-08-01T14:55:11","slug":"the-federal-farmers-fingerprints","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/the-federal-farmers-fingerprints\/","title":{"rendered":"The Federal Farmer\u2019s Fingerprints"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Federal Farmer\u2019s Fingerprints<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Federal Farmer \/ Elbridge Gerry Authorship Thesis\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

(Uncovering the Federal Farmer \u2013 Part 5)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Elbridge Gerry was one of three delegates who refused to sign the proposed Constitution. In a letter to the Massachusetts legislature Elbridge Gerry went public with the reasons for his opposition.[1]<\/a> Gerry explained that it was \u201cpainful\u201d for him to differ from his respectable colleagues. The first of Gerry\u2019s \u201cprincipal objections\u201d was that there was no adequate provision for \u201ca representation of the people.\u201d This identical phrase repeatedly appears in The Letters of the Federal Farmer<\/em>, arguably the most important of the Antifederalist essays during the ratification debate.<\/p>\n

The Federal Farmer\u2019s objective of securing \u201ca representation of the people\u201d is an example of a signature phrase \u2013 or fingerprint \u2013 connecting Elbridge Gerry and the Federal Farmer. It also turns out that the same signature phrase, \u201ca representation of the people,\u201d is derived from the Massachusetts Constitution. Yet, in 1787 this term of art does not appear in any of the other twelve state constitutions. Set forth below is a detailed discussion of Elbridge Gerry\u2019s linguistic fingerprints which taken together prove that he was the Federal Farmer.<\/p>\n

This blog post, Uncovering the Federal Farmer (Part 5)<\/strong><\/span>, is the fifth installment of a multi-part series attempting to demystify the Federal Farmer. Part 1<\/strong><\/span><\/a> revealed an unpublished and undated manuscript by Elbridge Gerry which sheds new light on his identity as the Federal Farmer. Part 2<\/a> <\/span><\/strong>continued with a discussion of Gerry, the elusive founding father who was one of the Constitutional Convention\u2019s most outspoken and \u201cconsistently contrary\u201d delegates. Part 2 also examines the historiography of the Federal Farmer, long believed to have been Richard Henry Lee. Part 3<\/strong><\/span><\/a> provides an overview of the mounting evidence supporting John Kaminski\u2019s attribution that Elbridge Gerry was the Federal Farmer, not Melancton Smith as commonly assumed by 20th century historians.<\/p>\n

Part 4<\/a><\/span><\/strong> takes a deep dive into archival evidence and the historic record. While Kaminski\u2019s 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\u2019s attribution analysis, is hereinafter referred to as the Federal Farmer \u2013 Elbridge Gerry Authorship Thesis (\u201cFEAT\u201d). It is anticipated that independent scholarly review of the FEAT will support the conclusion that Kaminski\u2019s attribution is now settled. In other words, it is the goal of this essay to put to rest \u201cby far the most controversial and long-lived debate\u201d over the authorship of a pseudonymous essay.<\/p>\n

Picking up where Part 4 left off, Part 5 presents additional evidence in support of the Federal Farmer \u2013 Elbridge Gerry Authorship Thesis. Part 5 identifies signature phrases used by Elbridge Gerry and the Federal Farmer, which are analogous to Gerry\u2019s linguistic fingerprints.<\/p>\n

Part 6 <\/strong><\/span><\/a>will continue with a discussion of additional attribution evidence linking Gerry and the Federal Farmer. Interestingly, Elbridge Gerry was not a typical Antifederalist. Some of the Federal Farmer\u2019s positions might be described as \u201cunexpected Antifederalist arguments.\u201d Although he had reservations about doing so, Elbridge Gerry served in the first Federal Congress. As to be expected, Gerry\u2019s speeches in Congress align with the positions of the Federal Farmer. Part 6 concludes with a discussion of \u201cGerry\u2019s endgame,\u201d the adoption of constitutional amendments, which further illustrate Gerry\u2019s identity as the Federal Farmer.<\/p>\n

Stylistic Fingerprints and Methodology<\/em><\/p>\n

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

Separate and apart from Gerry\u2019s formal objections to the Constitution, the Letters of the Federal Farmer<\/em> are replete with Gerry\u2019s unmistakable \u201cfingerprints\u201d \u2013 word combinations and patterns reflective of Gerry’s signature linguistic style.[2] <\/a>There is no doubt that many of these fingerprints overlap with the Federal Farmer\u2019s objections and underlying arguments. Yet, for analytical purposes it is useful to characterize Gerry\u2019s linguistic fingerprints separately from Gerry\u2019s objections and underlying arguments.<\/p>\n

Admittedly, distinguishing between Gerry\u2019s \u201cobjections,\u201d \u201cfingerprints\u201d and underlying \u201carguments\u201d is necessarily arbitrary. Nevertheless, due to the sheer volume of evidence, these distinctions are useful analytical and organizational tools. The label linguistic fingerprint will be applied to relatively unique signature phrases repeatedly used by Gerry and the Federal Farmer.<\/p>\n

By contrast, a supporting \u201cargument\u201d made by Gerry would be of less evidentiary value to the extent that other Antifederalists make similar arguments. The final category of \u201cunexpected Antifederalist arguments\u201d is viewed as particularly relevant for the FEAT thesis. Part 5 and 6 \u00a0identify a dozen \u201csignature phrases,\u201d dozens of supporting \u201carguments,\u201d but only a handful of \u201cunexpected Antifederalist arguments.\u201d \u00a0The \u201cunexpected\u201d Antifederalist arguments, or minority Antifederalist views, illustrate the daylight between Gerry and his other Antifederalist colleagues.<\/p>\n

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

\u201cA representation of the people\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Both Gerry and Federal Farmer repeatedly use the phrase \u201ca representation of the people<\/u><\/em>\u201d and permutations thereof. This signature fingerprint appears in the very first paragraph of both Federal Farmer No. 1 and No. 2. The Federal Farmer\u2019s conclusions are set forth in Federal Farmer No. 5, the final essay of the first Federal Farmer pamphlet. Despite the existence of many good safeguards, Federal Farmer No. 5 could not be more clear. \u201c[T]he value of every feature in this system is vastly lessened for the want of that one important feature in a free government, a representation of the people<\/u><\/em>.\u201d This perfectly aligns with the first objection listed by Gerry in his October 18th<\/sup> letter to the Massachusetts legislature, \u201cno adequate provision for a representation of the people<\/u><\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The topic of representation is the central theme of Federal Farmer No. 2. The opening paragraph of Federal Farmer No. 2 uses versions of the phrase seven times as follows, illustrating the centrality of the concept to the Federal Farmer\u2019s thinking:<\/p>\n

The essential parts of a free and good government are a full and equal representation of the people<\/u><\/em> in the legislature, and the jury trial of the vicinage in the administration of justice\u2014a full and equal representation, is that which possesses the same interests, feelings, opinions, and views the people themselves would were they all assembled\u2014a fair representation<\/em>, therefore, should be so regulated, that every order of men in the community, according to the common course of elections, can have a share in it\u2014in order to allow professional men, merchants, traders, farmers, mechanics, etc. to bring a just proportion of their best informed men respectively into the legislature, the representation<\/em> must be considerably numerous\u2014We have about 200 state senators in the United States, and a less number than that of federal representatives cannot, clearly, be a full representation of this people<\/u><\/em>, in the affairs of internal taxation and police. were there but one legislature for the whole union. The representation<\/em> cannot be equal, or the situation of the people proper for one government only\u2014if the extreme parts of the society cannot be represented as fully as the central\u2014It is apparently impracticable that this should be the case in this extensive country\u2014it would be impossible to collect a representation<\/em> of the parts of the country five, six, and seven hundred miles from the seat of government.<\/p>\n

Federal Farmer No. 2 argues that in a free country power is properly lodged with the \u201cguardians of the people.\u201d According to the Federal Farmer, power can only safely be used by \u201can able executive and judiciary, a respectable senate, and a secure, full and equal representation of the people<\/u><\/em>.\u201d The Federal Farmer defines \u201ca full and equal representation\u201d as \u201cthat which possesses the same interests, feelings, opinions, and views the people themselves would were they all assembled.\u201d Yet, after a careful examination of the proposed Constitution Federal Farmer No. 2 concludes that, \u201cwe must clearly perceive an unnatural separation of these powers from the substantial representation of the people<\/u>.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The small size and organization of the House of Representatives is discussed in Federal Farmer No. 3. In comparing the different regions of the nation, Federal Farmer No. 3 observed that the northern[3]<\/a> states were \u201cvery democratic,\u201d in comparison with the southern states where a \u201cdissipated aristocracy\u201d prevailed, composed chiefly of wealthy planters and slaves. Federal Farmer No. 3 also describes why the proposed Constitution fails to secure a true or proper representation of the people:<\/p>\n