{"id":17630,"date":"2025-07-29T21:23:44","date_gmt":"2025-07-30T01:23:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/?p=17630"},"modified":"2025-09-29T12:00:22","modified_gmt":"2025-09-29T16:00:22","slug":"federal-farmers-arguments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/federal-farmers-arguments\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal Farmer’s Arguments"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

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

(Uncovering the Federal Farmer \u2013 Part 6)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

During the winter of 1787 the fate of the proposed constitution was uncertain. Federalists and Antifederalists disagreed over ratification, the need for amendments, and whether a second Constitutional Convention should be called. As the summer approached, the nation prepared for contested ratification conventions in the deeply divided states of New York and Virginia.[1]<\/a> In May, the month before the eagerly anticipated New York ratification convention was scheduled to meet,[2]<\/a> nearly identical advertisements began appearing in New York City newspapers.[3]<\/a> Thomas Greenleaf\u2019s New York Journal<\/em> announced that a second pamphlet from the Federal Farmer was \u201cJust Published and to be sold.\u201d This was decidedly good news for Antifederalists, but not so for Federalists.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

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

The New York ratification convention began in mid-June 1788 and would not adjourn until July 26th<\/sup>. On the evening of July 4th Federalists and Antifederalists alike celebrated the nation\u2019s birthday. As reported in the Poughkeepsie County Journal,<\/em>[5]<\/a> a number of respectable citizens assembled at the house of Antifederalist Mathew Patterson. Glasses were raised for thirteen toasts, starting with the anniversary of American independence. Additional toasts honored Congress, General Washington, and the late army. With the New York ratification convention still meeting in Poughkeepsie, the following toasts were also raised:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. May the Convention of this State deliberate with coolness, impartiality and wisdom, on the important business now before them.<\/li>\n
  2. May the electors of the State of New-York, never give their suffrages to men or measures that may enslave them.<\/li>\n
  3. Annual elections, the basis of freedom in Republican Government.<\/li>\n
  4. The Federal Farmer and the Plebian.[6]<\/a><\/li>\n
  5. May the genius of America ever guard her sons against tyranny.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    As described by historians, the Letters of the Federal Farmer<\/em> \u201cbecame a primer for the Antifederalists.\u201d[7]<\/a> Indeed, several of the July 4th toasts borrowed from the Federal Farmer\u2019s arguments, in addition to toasting the Federal Farmer himself. For example, the Federal Farmer suggested that the state conventions should \u201cexamine coolly every article, clause and word\u201d of the proposed Constitution and adopt it \u201cwith such amendments as they shall think fit.\u201d[8]<\/a> The Federal Farmer also argued for annual elections, which not coincidentally was a consistent position held by Elbridge Gerry.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

    This blog post, Uncovering the Federal Farmer (Part 6<\/strong>), is the sixth installment of a multi-part series attempting to demystify the Federal Farmer. Part 1<\/strong><\/a><\/span> revealed an unpublished and undated manuscript by Elbridge Gerry which sheds new light on his identity as the Federal Farmer. Part 2<\/a><\/strong><\/span> explores Gerry\u2019s background and examines the historiography of the Federal Farmer, long believed to have been Richard Henry Lee. Part 3<\/strong><\/a><\/span> 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 modern historians.<\/p>\n

    Part 4<\/strong><\/a><\/span> takes a deep dive into archival evidence and the historic record summarized in Part 3<\/strong><\/a><\/span>. For example, the Antifederalists had difficulty getting published.[10]<\/a> Yet, it turns out that Elbridge Gerry was related to New York publisher, Thomas Greenleaf. Does the fact that Gerry\u2019s mother was a Greenleaf help explain Thomas Greenleaf\u2019s decision to publish the Letters of the Federal Farmer<\/em> and other Antifederalist works?<\/p>\n

    As set forth in Part 4<\/strong><\/a><\/span> 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 been uncovered in the Letters of the Federal Farmer<\/em>. Part 5<\/strong><\/a><\/span> identifies signature phrases used by Elbridge Gerry and the Federal Farmer, which are analogous to linguistic \u201cfingerprints.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Building on Part 5<\/strong><\/a><\/span>, Part 6 <\/strong>\u00a0presents additional evidence in support of the F<\/strong>ederal Farmer \u2013 E<\/strong>lbridge Gerry A<\/strong>uthorshipT<\/strong>hesis (FEAT). In 1988 John P. Kaminski posited that \u201call of the positions taken by the Federal Farmer appear perfectly consistent with Gerry\u2019s stance at the Constitutional Convention.\u201d[11]<\/a> Part 6 takes a wide-angle view of Gerry\u2019s record. \u00a0Elbridge Gerry was not a typical Antifederalist. Some of the Federal Farmer\u2019s positions might be described as advancing \u201cunexpected Antifederalist arguments,\u201d which provide further evidence linking Gerry and the Federal Farmer. \u00a0Part 6 demonstrates that the Federal Farmer\u2019s underlying arguments and reasoning aligns with Gerry\u2019s positions at the Convention, October 18th<\/sup> objections, and speeches during the first Federal Congress.<\/p>\n

    Part 7 <\/strong><\/span><\/a>continues with a discussion of \u201cGerry\u2019s endgame,\u201d the adoption of constitutional amendments, which further illustrate Gerry\u2019s identity as the Federal Farmer. For example, neither Gerry nor the Federal Farmer wanted to rush the adoption of constitutional amendments. Rather, as a member of the first Federal Congress, Gerry supported the adoption of essential legislation necessary to establish a working federal government, before proceeding with a robust and transparent amendment process.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n

    While no single piece of evidence is alone conclusive, it is believed that the combined weight of the mutually reinforcing attribution evidence is striking. It is anticipated that independent scholarly review of the FEAT Thesis will support the conclusion that Kaminski\u2019s attribution is now settled. In other words, the goal of this exercise is put to rest \u201cby far the most controversial and long-lived debate\u201d[13]<\/a> over the authorship of a pseudonymous essay.<\/p>\n

    A discussion of the Federal Farmer would not be complete without a discussion of Melancton Smith.\u00a0 Part 8 (pending) <\/strong>builds on Kaminski\u2019s suggestion that Smith was likely the Republican to whom the letters of the Federal Farmer were addressed, not the author of the Federal Farmer letters. This is not to say that Melancton Smith wasn\u2019t busy during the ratification campaign. Smith deserves recognition as the author of Brutus and Plebeian.<\/p>\n

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

    The Federal Farmer\u2019s second pamphlet, entitled An Additional Number of Letters from the Federal Farmer<\/em> (hereinafter the Federal Farmer\u2019s \u201cAdditional Letters<\/em>\u201d), was widely advertised in the New York newspapers during the spring and summer of 1788. It is unclear who wrote the advertisements for the Additional Letters<\/em>. The advertisements could have been written or co-written by Gerry, Thomas Greenleaf, or another publisher. Nevertheless, the widely published advertisements contain useful attribution evidence aligning with Elbridge Gerry.<\/p>\n

    Before exploring the Federal Farmer\u2019s underlying arguments, it makes sense to review the claims made in the newspaper advertisements for the Additional Letters<\/em>. The representations made to potential readers about the Federal Farmer help frame the author\u2019s objectives. In particular, the newspaper advertisements highlight the Federal Farmer\u2019s \u201cmoderation and candor,\u201d recommended amendments, and goal \u201cto adduce arguments to support them.\u201d Importantly, the Federal Farmer was more concerned with the \u201cmerits of the question\u201d and less concerned with the timing of whether amendments were adopted before or after ratification. As set forth below, the following statements support the FEAT thesis:<\/p>\n