{"id":18015,"date":"2025-11-20T15:32:48","date_gmt":"2025-11-20T20:32:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/?p=18015"},"modified":"2026-02-03T11:01:55","modified_gmt":"2026-02-03T16:01:55","slug":"brutus-syllogistic-reasoning-style-brutus-part-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.statutesandstories.com\/blog_html\/brutus-syllogistic-reasoning-style-brutus-part-4\/","title":{"rendered":"Brutus’ Syllogistic Reasoning (Brutus Part 4)"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

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

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

Melancton Smith\u2019s Syllogistical Reasoning Style<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The \u201cBrutus<\/em> \u2013 Melancton Smith Authorship Thesis\u201d (Part 4)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

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

During his first convention speech as the floor leader of the New York Antifederalists, Melancton Smith identified several preliminary considerations which he hoped would govern the delegates during the New York ratification convention.[1]<\/a>Smith agreed that \u201cthe discussion of the important<\/strong> question<\/strong> now before them\u201d ought to be entered upon with open minds and \u201cwith a determination to form opinions only on the merits<\/strong> of the question, from those evidences which should appear in the course of the investigation<\/strong>.\u201d Each of these sentiments had been expressed months earlier \u2013 repeatedly – by Brutus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Brutus 1<\/em> began the first of his sixteen essays[2]<\/a> by describing the debate over the ratification of the Constitution as \u201c[t]he most important<\/strong> question<\/strong> that was ever proposed to your decision.\u201d[3]<\/a> Brutus <\/em>emphasized that the Constitution should be \u201cadopted or rejected upon a fair discussion of its merits<\/strong>.\u201d[4]<\/a> In his final essay written prior to the election of delegates to the Poughkeepsie convention,[5]<\/a> Smith (writing as Plebeian<\/em>) declared \u201c[l]et the constitution stand on its own merits<\/strong>.\u201d[6]<\/a>Indeed, the very first sentence of Brutus 1<\/em> began by emphasizing the magnitude of the \u201cquestion<\/strong>\u201d that the public was being called upon \u201cto investigate<\/strong>.\u201d[7]<\/a> Likewise, the opening sentence of Brutus 3<\/em> reiterated that \u201c[i]n the investigation<\/strong> of this constitution, under your consideration, great care should be taken, that you do not form your opinions respecting it, from unimportant provisions, or fallacious appearances.\u201d[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

For the past two hundred years historians have disagreed over Brutus\u2019s<\/em> identity. Yet, generations of historians have agreed that Brutus\u2019s<\/em> pseudonymous essays were among the \u201cmost powerful and well-reasoned<\/strong> Antifederalist writing.\u201d[9]<\/a> In particular, historians have pointed to Brutus\u2019s<\/em> logical reasoning as a distinguishing feature of his writing style. For example, in the 1960s Cecelia M. Kenyon noted that Brutus\u2019s<\/em> letters were \u201coutstanding for their logical<\/strong> development<\/strong> of possible implications and ramifications specific legal clauses in the constitution.\u201d[10]<\/a> Pointing to Brutus 6,<\/em> Kenyon observed that Brutus\u2019s \u201clogic<\/strong> is powerful.\u201d In 1965, Morton Borden published The Anti-Federalist Papers<\/em>, eighty-five Antifederalist essays intended to illustrate Antifederalist responses to each of the eight-five Federalist Papers<\/em>. For Borden, Brutus\u2019s <\/em>\u201creasoning<\/strong>\u201d was \u201cimpressive,\u201d \u201cwell structured,\u201d and offered \u201cuncommon foresight.\u201d[11]<\/a> More recently, Pauline Maier observed that Brutus<\/em> \u201coffered tight, closely reasoned arguments<\/strong>\u201d which were central to the Antifederalist case against the Constitution.[12]<\/a> This analysis of Brutus\u2019s<\/em> logical writing style fully aligns with descriptions of Melancton Smith\u2019s convention speeches.<\/p>\n

A young James Kent, who would go on to become one of the nation\u2019s foremost jurists, observed Smith in action during the New York ratification convention. In Kent\u2019s view, Alexander Hamilton was \u201cindisputably pre-eminent.\u201d Yet, Smith was \u201cequally the most prominent and the most responsible speaker on the Anti-Federalist side of the Convention.\u201d According to Kent, nobody \u201ccompared to Smith in his powers of acute and logical<\/strong> discussion,\u201d notwithstanding his \u201cdry, plain and syllogistic<\/strong>\u201d speaking style.[13]<\/a> This contemporary description of Smith, is entirely consistent with descriptions by historians of both Smith and Brutus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Ron Chernow notes that Smith was \u201ca deceptively good debater who knew how to lure opponents into logical<\/strong> traps from which they found it hard to escape.\u201d[14]<\/a> Pointing to similarities between Smith\u2019s speeches and Brutus<\/em>, David J. Siemers argues that Smith evidenced the \u201csame kind of attention to detail and depth of argument<\/strong> characteristic of Brutus<\/em>.\u201d[15]<\/a>As discussed below, Brutus<\/em> frequently supported his arguments with maxims and axioms, which perfectly aligns with Smith\u2019s speeches. By contrast, Smith opined that one of the leading Federalist speakers, Chancellor Robert R. Livingston, was a \u201cwretched reasoner.\u201d[16]<\/a> Accordingly, the symmetry between the logical reasoning style of Smith and Brutus<\/em> is useful attribution evidence that helps confirm the \u201cBrutus<\/em> \u2013 Melancton Smith Authorship Thesis.\u201d[17]<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Overview of Brutus<\/em> Attribution<\/p>\n

This blog post is the fourth of a multi-part series exploring the authorship of the sixteen letters of Brutus<\/em>. The \u201cBrutus<\/em> \u2013 Melancton Smith Authorship Thesis\u201d<\/strong> argues that Brutus<\/em> was Melancton Smith, Alexander Hamilton\u2019s chief opponent at the New York ratification convention in Poughkeepsie. Part 1<\/a><\/strong><\/span> provided an overview of existing scholarship and a summary of the new evidence compiled by Statutesandstories.com in collaboration with John P. Kaminski. Parts 2<\/strong><\/a> <\/span>and 3 <\/strong><\/a><\/span>set forth the detailed attribution evidence summarized in Part 1<\/span><\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Part 2<\/strong> <\/a><\/span>focused on pre-authorship <\/em>attribution evidence arising prior to the printing of the Brutus<\/em> essays from 18 October 1787 to 10 April 1788. Part 3 <\/strong><\/a><\/span>continued with a discussion of post-authorship<\/em> attribution evidence primarily arising from Smith\u2019s speeches at the New York ratification convention.[18]<\/a> Part 4 below focuses on Smith\u2019s syllogistical reasoning style which aligns with Brutus<\/em>. Part 5 <\/strong><\/span><\/a>\u00a0will discuss newly uncovered speeches by Melancton Smith which further confirm Melancton Smith\u2019s identity as Brutus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The \u201cBrutus <\/em>\u2013 Melancton Smith Authorship Thesis\u201d<\/strong> is based on a detailed review of decades of correspondence, pamphlets, legislative history, records of the New York ratification convention, and recently uncovered speeches by Smith. Much of this work is only made possible after the completion of the monumental forty-seven volumes of the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution<\/em> (DHRC<\/em>). Readers are advised that Parts 2 and 3 are not intended to be a quick read. Unlike more traditional and reader friendly blog posts, Parts 2 and 3 might best be consumed in digestible installments.<\/p>\n

Earlier this year, Statutesandstories.com released a related seven-part series about the Antifederalist Federal Farmer<\/em>. Historians have long recognized Brutus<\/em> and the Federal Farmer<\/em> as the two most important Antifederalist authors. For decades, the Federal Farmer<\/em> was believed to have been Richard Henry Lee. In 1974, historian Gordon Wood challenged this longstanding attribution, but did not offer a replacement author. In 1988, John P. Kaminski released a paper arguing that Elbridge Gerry was the Federal Farmer<\/em>. Click here<\/a><\/strong><\/span> for a link to the F<\/em><\/strong>ederal Farmer <\/em>\u2013 E<\/strong>lbridge Gerry A<\/strong>uthorship T<\/strong>hesis (\u201cFEAT\u201d)<\/strong> <\/a><\/span>which surveys newly uncovered evidence that Gerry was in fact the Federal Farmer<\/em>. With Gerry confirmed as the Federal Farmer<\/em>, the field is cleared for Melancton Smith to be recognized as Brutus<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Brutus<\/em><\/strong> – Part 2<\/strong> <\/a><\/span>was organized into the following categories of attribution evidence:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Smith\u2019s 1784 pamphlet opposing the holding in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington<\/em> which made Smith a leading early critic of judicial review;<\/li>\n
  2. the choice of the pseudonym Brutus<\/em> and Smith\u2019s political rivalry with Alexander Hamilton;<\/li>\n
  3. Smith\u2019s 1786 speech to Congress defending New York\u2019s conditional adoption of the impost requested by Congress;<\/li>\n
  4. Smith\u2019s two pamphlets as A Republican<\/em> defending New York\u2019s conditional approval of the impost;<\/li>\n
  5. the nexus and political relationship between Smith and New York Governor George Clinton, as evidenced in Charles Tillinghast\u2019s letter to Hugh Hughes dated 27 January 1788; and<\/li>\n
  6. logistical considerations which place Smith in Brutus\u2019s<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Brutus<\/em> – Part 3<\/a> <\/strong><\/span>continued with a discussion of the additional attribution evidence which flows in large part from Smith\u2019s speeches at the New York ratification convention in June and July of 1788:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Brutus\u2019s<\/em> frequent use of biblical references which aligns with Smith\u2019s biography as an \u201cardent Presbyterian\u201d and \u201cpillar of his church\u201d;<\/li>\n
    2. Smith\u2019s ardent and abiding opposition to slavery which aligns with Brutus<\/em>;<\/li>\n
    3. Smith\u2019s linguistic fingerprints (words and phrases reoccurring in Smith\u2019s correspondence and speeches) which align with Brutus<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Brutus<\/em> – Part 4 below presents the remaining categories of attribution evidence which connect Smith to Brutus<\/em>:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Smith\u2019s logical and syllogistic reasoning style which aligns with Brutus<\/em>;<\/li>\n
      2. Brutus\u2019s <\/em>lack of insider knowledge relating to the Constitutional Convention, in contrast to the Federal Farmer<\/em>;<\/li>\n
      3. Brutus\u2019s <\/em>intimate knowledge<\/em> of the workings of the Confederation Congress which aligns with Smith\u2019s service in Congress beginning in 1785.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        In an effort to avoid duplication, Part 4 assumes knowledge on the part of readers, who are encouraged to click on bolded links to prior blog posts and related primary sources. As was the case with Parts 2 <\/strong><\/a><\/span>and 3<\/strong>, Part 4 contains relatively dense material. For this reason, Part 4 might best be consumed in digestible installments.<\/p>\n

        Brutus\u2019s<\/em> syllogistic reasoning style aligns with Smith<\/p>\n

        In his June 20 speech Melancton Smith invoked foundational principles of logical reasoning, which he hoped both sides would observe. Smith suggested that \u201cpremises should be laid down<\/strong> previously to the drawing of any conclusion<\/strong>.\u201d[19]<\/a>This admonition harkens back to the same observation by Brutus 10<\/em>: \u201cI confess, I cannot perceive that the conclusion follows from the premises<\/strong>. Logicians say, it is not good reasoning to infer a general conclusion from particular premises.<\/strong>\u201d[20]<\/a> The focus of Brutus 10<\/em> was the danger posed by large standing armies. In responding to Federalist 24<\/em>\u2019s defense of standing armies, Brutus 10<\/em> employed the following logical technique: he simplified and restated the Federalist argument \u201cstriped<\/em> of the abundant verbages<\/em> with which the author has dressed it.\u201d[21]<\/a><\/p>\n

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

        This identical strategy was described by Smith on June 21, in another early convention speech. The following passage provides a window into Smith\u2019s thinking and logical mind. Smith explained his approach to \u201cfair reasoning<\/strong>\u201d as follows:<\/p>\n

        In most pol. opinions there will be variant opinions amongst men of understg.\u2014Each will support their sentiments in the best manner their abilities will enable them\u2014It frequently happens that superior talents<\/strong>are engaged on the one side against plain common sense<\/strong> on the other\u2014But no abilities can change the nature of things\u2014or make truth falsehood <\/strong>or the contrary\u2014Every man who will think for himself, will weigh the arguments<\/strong> offered on both sides, and judge for himself<\/strong>\u2014He will strip them of the verbage with which they are clothed<\/strong>, and seperate them from the\u00a0artful<\/span>\u00a0specious<\/strong>\u00a0forms they may assume & from the agreeable manner in which they are presented\u2014and careful examine whether they point to the object, or to something else.<\/p>\n

        In other words, the New York voters addressed by Brutus<\/em> (and the convention delegates addressed by Smith) should see beyond the superficial \u201csuperior talents<\/em>\u201d of the Federalist proponents and use \u201cplain common sense<\/em>.\u201d[22]<\/a> Each voter\/delegate should \u201cthink for himself\u201d and strip arguments of the \u201cverbiage<\/em> with which they are clothed<\/em>\u201d to identify \u201cspecious<\/em>\u201d arguments, regardless of the \u201cagreeable manner in which they are presented.\u201d<\/p>\n

        Similarly, Brutus 3<\/em> reasoned, \u201cif the clause, which provides for this branch, be stripped<\/em> of its ambiguity<\/em>, it will be found that there is really no equality of representation, even in this house.\u201d This aligns with Plebeian<\/em> who sought to strip a Federalist argument of its \u201cartificial coloring.\u201d Indeed, the use of the phraseology of \u201cstripping<\/em>\u201d an argument \/ language from its \u201cverbiage,<\/em>\u201d \u201cambiguity<\/em>,\u201d or \u201ccolouring<\/em>\u201d is properly viewed as a signature Brutus<\/em>\/Smith fingerprint.[23]<\/a><\/p>\n

        The goal was to \u201ccarefully examine\u201d whether an argument supported the \u201cobject\u201d \/ \u201cend,\u201d using premises to establish a conclusion. Smith continued that voters\/delegates should disregard – and not give \u201cweight\u201d to – Federalist rhetoric which was contrary to longstanding and respected \u201cwriters & reasoners\u201d on a subject:<\/p>\n

        \u2014It will have no weight<\/strong> wt him, for a person to charge those who differ from him,\u00a0with having wrong Ideas\u2014that it is high time we shd. reason right\u2014That his opinions are contrary to that of all writers & reasoners on the subject<\/strong>\u2014that talking of danger to Liberty is mere verbage<\/strong>\u2014that to a mind no[t] predisposed, his Arguts. are conclusive\u2014that his apprehensions of danger to Liberty is fanciful\u2014These and every thing of that Kind will pass wt. a man who reasons for himself <\/strong>as mere verbage<\/strong>\u2014There is no reason to use this method on the part of those who advocate the Const\u2014because if truth is on their side, they have ability & skill to support it, by fair reasoning<\/strong>\u2014many of them have been in the habit of public speaking\u2014and are [\u2013\u00a0\u2013\u00a0\u2013] for their talents<\/strong>\u2014It gives room to suspect, their cause not very good, when the ablest men in advocy. abound in such assertn instd. of Argt.\u2014<\/p>\n

        This rhetorical device of stripping away \u201cmere verbiage<\/em>,\u201d evaluating \u201cobjects<\/em>\u201d \/ \u201cends<\/em>,\u201d and testing whether a \u201cmeans<\/em>\u201d was necessary to establish\/answer an object\/end was used by Smith and Brutus<\/em> alike. As stated by Brutus 5<\/em>, \u201cthe means should be suited to the end; a government should be framed with a view to the objects to which it extends.\u201d[24]<\/a> As described in Brutus<\/em> – Part 2<\/strong><\/a><\/span>, Smith used this same logical strategy during the impost debate in Congress in 1786:<\/p>\n