|
 1787
|
October 1787
|
 Oct 8, 1787: Federal Farmer I (Virginia)
|
The Antifederalist Federal Farmer’s “first principle question” is ought we “to precipitate the adoption of the proposed constitution?” No. “Nothing but the passions of ambitious, impatient, or disorderly men, I conceive, will plunge us into commotions.” True, we had difficulties under the Articles, but they weren’t that bad to warrant the hasty adoption of a “consolidated” plan of the Constitution. “The non-attendance of eight or nine men, who were appointed members of the convention, I shall ever consider a very unfortunate event to the United States. Had they attended, I am pretty clear that the result of the convention would not have had that strong tendency to aristocracy now discernable in the very part of the plan.” He concludes: the proposed Constitution “appears to be a plan retaining some federal features, but to be the first important step, and to aim strongly, to one consolidated government of the United States.” The Constitution, according to the Federal Farmer, is currently partly national and partly federal, but it contains the strong potentiality to become wholly national.
Full Text of Document
|
|
|
Oct 9, 1787: Federal Farmer II (Virginia)
|
The Antifederalist Federal Farmer focuses on three main objections in this essay. He claims that the proposed Constitution 1) fails the “full and equal representation” test 2) inadequately separates the powers of government and 3) has a strong tendency to consolidation.
Full Text of Document
|
|
|
Oct 10, 1787: Federal Farmer III (Virginia)
|
The Antifederalist Federal Farmer continues his critique of the proposed Constitution: “I will examine first, the organization of the proposed government in order to judge, second, with propriety, what powers are improperly, at least prematurely lodged in it. I shall examine, third, the undefined powers, and fourth, those powers, the exercise of which is not secured on safe and proper ground.”
Full Text of Document
|
|
|
Oct 12, 1787: Federal Farmer IV (Virginia)
|
The Antifederalist Federal Farmer, without mentioning James Wilson by name, criticizes the claim of the State House Speech that a bill of rights is unnecessary and dangerous. The Federal Farmer argues that the provisions of Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution are a partial bill of rights—see the restriction on ex post facto laws—so why don’t we either drop them or go the whole distance and itemize a bill of rights that incudes “other essential rights”?
The Federal Farmer is concerned that the Constitution contains within itself the potentiality to become a consolidated government despite Wilson’s argument that the Constitution only bestows powers that are clearly stated. Wilson seems to be arguing that the Framers created a confederacy with expressly delegated powers! How strange is that! The Federal Farmer thinks the Framers created a government and not simply a revision of a confederation. Thus the need for a comprehensive bill of rights since the Constitution contains the seeds of permitting a general government to operate with unlimited powers.
Full Text of Document
|
|
|
|
December 1787
|
Dec 31, 1787: Federal Farmer VII (Virginia)
|
The Antifederalist Federal Farmer argues that underlying all forms of government there are but two principles or “important springs which alone move the machines and give them their intended influence and control.” Theirs are “force and persuasion.” In this essay, “I repeat my observation that the plan proposed will have a doubtful operation between the two principles; and whether it will preponderate towards persuasion or force is uncertain.”
Full Text of Document
|
|
|
|
|
