{"id":17836,"date":"2025-10-03T05:28:28","date_gmt":"2025-10-03T09:28:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/?p=17836"},"modified":"2025-11-22T17:00:21","modified_gmt":"2025-11-22T22:00:21","slug":"confirmed-antifederalist-melancton-smith-was-brutus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/confirmed-antifederalist-melancton-smith-was-brutus\/","title":{"rendered":"Confirmed: Antifederalist Melancton Smith was Brutus"},"content":{"rendered":"

Confirmed: Antifederalist Melancton Smith was Brutus<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Overview of the Brutus \u2013 Melancton Smith Authorship Thesis (Part 1)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

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

Adam P. Levinson, Esq. & John P. Kaminski, PhD<\/span><\/p>\n

In the fall of 1787 America was ramping up for the unprecedented national debate over whether to ratify the Constitution proposed in Philadelphia. Although the much anticipated Constitution was initially celebrated, Antifederalists did not wait long to raise the alarm.[1]<\/a> Much of the public debate reverberating throughout the country appeared in newspapers, broadsides, and pamphlets by anonymous authors using pseudonyms. Within a month of the Constitution\u2019s debut, two Antifederalist publications attracted particular attention. Sixteen letters written by Brutus<\/em> were printed in the New York Journal<\/em> between 18 October 1787 and 10 April 1788. Eighteen letters by the Federal Farmer<\/em> were published in two consecutively-numbered pamphlets in November of 1787 and May of 1788. The identity of Brutus<\/em> and the Federal Farmer<\/em> was unknown for many years before historians incorrectly attempted to identify them. Sufficient new evidence has now surfaced to allow conclusive attribution of both of these influential Antifederalist publications.<\/p>\n

In mid-October of 1787, James Madison read an Antifederalist essay which quickly grabbed his attention. Writing to Virigina Governor Edmund Randolph, Madison summarized the anticipated objections appearing in the papers. Yet, after reading the first Brutus <\/em>essay, Madison warned that, \u201c[a] new Combatant however with considerable address & plausibility, strikes at the foundation.\u201d[2]<\/a> Alexander Hamilton no doubt shared similar concerns after reading Brutus\u2019 <\/em>critique, leading Hamilton to recruit John Jay and later James Madison to write The Federalist<\/em>.[3]<\/a> A year later, New York Antifederalist Melancton Smith would describe the ratification process as \u201cone of the most astonishing events in the history of humane affairs.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

The eighty-five Federalist<\/em> essays have long been studied and praised by historians, resulting in the \u201cthickest overlay of scholarly interpretation ever lavished on a set of essays.\u201d[5]<\/a> Yet, the sixteen Brutus<\/em> essays were not reprinted in their entirety until 1971.[6]<\/a> Nevertheless, scholars concede that Publius<\/em> was not writing in a vacuum as an academic exercise. Rather, the famous Federalist<\/em> essays are properly understood as an iterative back-and-forth dialogue with Antifederalist opponents.[7]<\/a> In particular, modern historians now recognize that Brutus<\/em> stands out as the \u201cchief interlocutor\u201d[8]<\/a> and \u201cmost formidable antagonist of the immortal Publius<\/em>.\u201d[9]<\/a> Indeed, Madison\u2019s first and arguably most famous essay, Federalist<\/em> 10<\/em>, was likely written to refute Brutus I<\/em>.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n

Although the Federalist <\/em>essays don\u2019t refer to Brutus<\/em> by name, Hamilton felt the need to provide a \u201cpoint-by-point rejoinder\u201d to Brutus\u2019 <\/em>assault on judicial supremacy.[11]<\/a> In turn, Brutus<\/em> provided the \u201cmost effective direct response to Publius<\/em>.\u201d[12]<\/a> In addition to responding to Publius<\/em>, Brutus<\/em> also took aim at other Federalists. For example, Brutus <\/em>\u201ceffectively demolished\u201d Pennsylvania delegate and future Supreme Court justice James Wilson\u2019s defense of the omission of a bill of rights.[13]<\/a><\/p>\n

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

This blog post is the first of a multi-part series exploring the authorship of the sixteen letters of Brutus<\/em>. The Brutus \u2013 Melancton Smith Authorship Thesis <\/strong><\/span>argues that Brutus<\/em> was Melancton Smith, Alexander Hamilton\u2019s chief opponent at the New York ratification convention in Poughkeepsie. Part 1 begins with an overview of existing scholarship. Part 1 then offers a summary of the detailed new evidence which has been compiled by Statutesandstories.com in collaboration with John P. Kaminski. Part 2<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/a>will provide an exhaustive review of the evidence summarized in Part 1. Part 3<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0<\/a>will discuss newly uncovered speeches by Melancton Smith.<\/p>\n

As pointed out by historian Gordon Wood over fifty years ago, the attribution of pseudonymous essays is \u201ca difficult business.\u201d In 1974, Wood challenged the longstanding view that Richard Henry Lee was the Federal Farmer<\/em>, one of Brutus\u2019<\/em> closest Antifederalist allies. In so doing, Wood fully recognized that the process of attributing authorship is \u201ca business of great responsibility,\u201d as accepted attributions tend to get bound in the literature and taken for granted over time. Wood concluded that, \u201c[b]arring some unforeseen manuscript discovery, the authorship of the\u00a0Letters from the Federal Farmer<\/em>\u00a0will probably never be definitively known.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet with the completion of the seminal forty-seven volumes of the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution<\/em> (“DHRC”)<\/em>, scholars today have unrivaled access to sources unavailable to prior generations of historians. Moreover, working in collaboration with John P. Kaminski, Statutesandstories.com has compiled additional and mounting evidence of the identity of both the Federal Farmer<\/em> and Brutus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In 1988 Kaminski presented a paper convincingly arguing that Elbridge Gerry was the Federal Farmer<\/em>. Nonetheless, many historians continue to attribute the letters of the Federal Farmer<\/em> to Melancton Smith or Richard Henry Lee. In a series of blog posts earlier this year, Statutesandstories argued that it is past time to conclude that Elbridge Gerry was in fact the Federal Farmer<\/em>. Click here for a link to the F<\/span>ederal Farmer<\/span> \u2013 Elbridge Gerry Authorship Thesis (\u201cFEAT\u201d) <\/span><\/strong><\/a>a multi-part series which presents new evidence in support of Kaminski\u2019s attribution of Elbridge Gerry as the Federal Farmer<\/em>. With the identity of the Federal Farmer<\/em> confirmed as Elbridge Gerry, the stage is set for Melancton Smith to claim his rightful role as Brutus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Brutus<\/em> authorship attributions<\/span><\/p>\n

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

During the ratification campaign, contemporaneous sources speculated that Brutus<\/em> was Abrham Yates, Jr., Governor George Clinton, Richard Henry Lee, or John Jay.[14]<\/a> Over the years, scholars have offered at least four other possibilities. Beginning in the late 19th<\/sup> century, historians Samuel B. Harding and Paul Leicester Ford proposed that Thomas Treadwell was Brutus<\/em>, as Tredwell used the pseudonym in 1789.[15]<\/a> Four years later Ford later reconsidered in favor of Robert Yates, but did not specify his reasons.[16]<\/a> As a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and a skilled lawyer, the Yates attribution was certainly understandable.<\/p>\n

In his 1961 classic work, The Anti-federalists<\/em>, historian Jackson Turner Main continued to rely on Ford\u2019s attribution that Robert Yates was Brutus<\/em>.[17]<\/a> When Morton Borden compiled the Anti-Federalist Papers<\/em> in 1965, he expressed doubts that Yates could have been Brutus<\/em>.[18]<\/a> Yet, Bordon did not suggest another replacement attribution. The following year, Cecelia Kenyon abided by the widely accepted Robert Yates attribution. Kenyon opined that \u201cthe Antifederalists had no publicist more able than Robert Yates,\u201d the author of Brutus<\/em>.[19]<\/a><\/p>\n

When William Jeffrey, Jr., republished all sixteen Brutus<\/em> essays in 1971, he acknowledged that the letters were commonly attributed to Robert Yates. Conceding that unless or until hard evidence was uncovered, \u201cwe shall never know, with any certainty,\u201d Brutus\u2019<\/em> identity. With that caveat, Jeffrey offered his own candidate, Melancton Smith. Jeffrey reasoned that Smith was a leader of the Antifederalists at the New York ratification convention. Importantly, Jeffrey drew connections between A Plebeian<\/em> drafted by Smith and Brutus<\/em>.[20]<\/a><\/p>\n

By 1976, Ann Diamond summarized that Robert Yates was \u201cgenerally thought to be Brutus<\/em>,\u201d but other candidates included Treadwell and Smith. Recognizing that there was \u201cno decisive evidence to settle the question of authorship,\u201d Diamond supported the Yates attribution. Diamond argued that Brutus\u2019<\/em> \u201cremarkably prophetic attack on the power of the proposed federal judiciary could only be the work of a judge,\u201d which pointed to Yates.[21]<\/a><\/p>\n

In 1981, in his seven-volume series The Complete Anti-Federalist<\/em>, Herbert Storing acknowledged that he was unable to unearth any additional evidence to support or refute the longstanding Robert Yates attribution. Recognizing Brutus\u2019 <\/em>considerable legal knowledge, Storing discounted Jeffrey\u2019s attribution of Melancton Smith. According to Storing, the circumstantial case for Smith was \u201cnot a very persuasive one.\u201d[22]<\/a> By 1987, Murray Dry noted that Brutus<\/em> was \u201csurely more open to the proposed Constitution than was Yates,\u201d who departed the Constitutional Convention. Dry admitted, unfortunately, that the identification of Brutus \u201cremains uncertain even today.\u201d[23]<\/a><\/p>\n

By 1990, informed opinion began to include Melancton Smith as a serious contender alongside Yates. Nevertheless, when Gaspare J. Saladino reviewed the pseudonyms used during ratification, he acknowledged that the authorship of Brutus <\/em>\u201chas not been determined.\u201d[24]<\/a> In 1993, Bernard Bailyn agreed that the author of the Brutus<\/em> essays \u201cis not known,\u201d suggesting that Brutus<\/em> was Robert Yates or Abraham Yates, Jr.[25]<\/a><\/p>\n

Yet, without mentioning Smith, in 1999 Bruce Frohnen indicated that Brutus\u2019<\/em> \u201cpowerful and highly influential essays are generally ascribed to Robert Yates.\u201d[26]<\/a> Frohnen did not consider Smith as the author of Brutus<\/em> because Frohnen incorrectly understood that the letters of the Federal Farmer<\/em> \u201care now generally thought to have been written by Melancton Smith.\u201d[27]<\/a> In 2003, Terrence Ball published an expanded edition of \u201cThe Federalist<\/em> with the letters of Brutus<\/em>.\u201d Ball\u2019s \u201cbest guess\u201d as to the identity of the \u201credoubtable polemicist who call himself Brutus<\/em>\u201d was Robert Yates.[28]<\/a><\/p>\n

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

The first New York volume of the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution<\/em> (\u201cDHRC\u201d<\/em>) was also published in 2003. After summarizing the competing authorship attributions, the DHRC<\/em> added that a letter dated 23 January 1788 from Melancton Smith to Abraham Yates, Jr., \u201clends credence to the belief that Smith was Brutus<\/em>.\u201d As described by the DHRC<\/em>, in his letter \u201cSmith requested that both Yates and Samuel Jones, another Antifederalist leader, provide him with their \u2018observations\u2019 on the Constitution, \u2018especially on the Judicial powers of it.\u2019 Smith believed that the judicial powers \u2018clinch\u2019<\/em> all the other powers of the Constitution.\u201d[29]<\/a> As will be explained in greater detail in Part 2<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, this 23 January 1788 letter is powerful attribution evidence. In particular, the January letter connects Smith to the Brutus<\/em> essays as they were being written.<\/p>\n

Thereafter, David J. Siemers observed that Brutus\u2019<\/em> identity was uncertain, \u201cbut speculation has centered on Melancton Smith.\u201d[30]<\/a> In 2008 Joel A. Johnson proposed an entirely new attribution, New York convention delegate John Williams. The suggestion that Williams was Brutus<\/em> rests almost entirely on the fact that Williams cited at length from Brutus<\/em> essays during the New York ratification convention.[31]<\/a> As will be discussed in Part 2<\/span><\/strong><\/a>, this attribution is fundamentally flawed as Williams also cited from Cato<\/em> and other Antifederalist sources without attribution.<\/p>\n

Notwithstanding the DHRC\u2019s<\/em> monumental work, historians and political scientists continue to discount Smith\u2019s role as Brutus<\/em>.[32]<\/a> In other cases, Smith is credited as the\u00a0Federal Farmer<\/em>\u00a0rather than Gerry.[33]<\/a> In 2009 Michael P. Zuckert and Derek A. Webb entertained the possibility that Smith was the author of either Brutus<\/em> or the Federal Farmer<\/em>. As an alternative, Zuckert and Webb offered the possibility of authorship by the \u201cMelancton Smith circle\u201d of \u201clike-minded individuals.\u201d[34]<\/a> In 2020 Richard M. Treanor focused on Brutus\u2019<\/em> concern with judicial review to support the attribution that Smith was Brutus<\/em>.[35]<\/a> Not surprisingly, the internet is teeming with incorrect attributions, including websites of reputable institutions.[36]<\/a> When asked the question, \u201cwho was the Antifederalist Brutus who wrote essays in 1787-1788?,\u201d ChatGPT currently identifies Robert Yates.[37]<\/a> As recognized by Gordon Wood, inertia is a powerful force when it comes to pseudonymous writings.<\/p>\n

Summary of attribution evidence<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

It has been over fifty years since William Jeffrey first suggested that Melancton Smith was Brutus<\/em>. The DHRC<\/em> has supported Jeffrey\u2019s thesis since 2003. Building on this attribution, Statutesandstories has uncovered additional evidence which helps confirm the conclusion that Melancton Smith was\u00a0in fact<\/em>\u00a0Brutus<\/em>. 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 determinative. The totality of the following attribution evidence is hereinafter referred to as the Brutus<\/strong> – <\/span>Melancton Smith Authorship Thesis<\/span>[38]<\/a><\/strong>:<\/p>\n