Much of the debate over ratifying the Constitution took place in the print media—newspapers, broadsides, pamphlets, and magazines. Many of the articles written by Federalists and Antifederalists appeared anonymously. The frequent use of pseudonyms aided in maintaining the anonymity of authors. Perhaps the most consequential Antifederalist publication was written by the “Federal Farmer” that appeared as two consecutively paginated pamphlets first published in New York: the first in early November 1787, and the second five months later on 2 May 1788.
The first pamphlet, Observations Leading to a Fair Examination of the System of Government Proposed by the Late Convention; and to Several Essential and Necessary Alterations in It, consists of forty pages and is written as a series of five letters dated October 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13, 1787. The second pamphlet, An Additional Number of Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican; Leading to a Fair Examination of the System of Government, Proposed by the Late Convention; and to Several Essential and Necessary Alterations in It; and Calculated to Illustrate and Support the Principles and Positions Laid Down in the Preceding Letters, spans 141 pages and contains thirteen letters dated between December 25, 1787, and January 25, 1788.
Although the Federal Farmer included many of the standard Antifederalist arguments against the Constitution, he did so in a moderate tone that stressed the overriding importance of Union. An advertisement in the New York Journal and the New York Packet on 2 May 1788, indicated that “candid men of both parties” acknowledged the pamphlet’s “spirit of moderation and candour. . . . The author does not aim to foment the passions; his appeal is to the reason of his readers. He wishes every man to examine for himself and form his own opinion on the merits of the question.” Edward Carrington, a Virginia lawyer-planter then serving as a delegate to the Confederation Congress, praised the pamphlets in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, writing that they “are reputed the best of any thing that has been written in the opposition” (9 June 1788). In ending his first pamphlet, Federal Farmer acknowledged the merits of the proposed Constitution while critiquing its flaws. He conceded that the system contained “many good things,” noting that it was “founded on elective principles” and featured important checks on legislative overreach. However, he argued that its value was “vastly lessened” by the lack of a truly representative government. Rejecting the notion that democracy was inherently dangerous, he asserted, “Because we have sometimes abused democracy, I am not among those men who think a democratic branch a nuisance; which branch shall be sufficiently numerous, to admit some of the best informed men of each order in the community into the administration of government.”
The identity of the Federal Farmer remained a mystery for a century. Several brief Federalist articles in Connecticut and Massachusetts newspapers attributed the pamphlets to Richard Henry Lee, a Virginian planter rumored to have opposed George Washington during the Revolutionary War. This attribution served as a convenient tactic for Federalists, allowing them to discredit the pamphlets by association rather than engaging with the Federal Farmer’s arguments directly. As a result, the work was largely ignored by Federalists without any substantive refutation of its specific points.
Relying on these contemporary partisan accusations, historian Paul Leicester Ford attributed the Federal Farmer to Lee in his 1888 compilation of pamphlets published during the debate over ratifying the Constitution. This attribution stood uncontested for eighty years, until the mid-1970s when several historians expressed doubt of Lee’s authorship without, however, suggesting an alternative. A decade later, two articles appeared in The William and Mary Quarterly and in New York History that asserted that Melancton Smith, a political lieutenant of New York Governor George Clinton, had written the Federal Farmer pamphlets. The only justification for this attribution was that a reference quoted from Cesare Beccaria’s 1764 Crimes and Punishments appeared in the Federal Farmer’s second pamphlet and in one of Smith’s speeches in the New York ratifying convention in June 1788. Actually, this evidence provides no viable proof of Smith’s authorship because both Federal Farmer and Smith probably appropriated the quotation either directly from Beccaria’s book that had been translated into English first appearing in an American edition in 1777 or from the First Continental Congress’ 1774 address to the inhabitants of the province of Quebec that contained the same quotation from Beccaria’s volume. Another likely possibility is that Smith obtained Beccaria’s quotation from Federal Farmer’s pamphlet that had been printed a month earlier.
A far more likely author is Elbridge Gerry. A well-to-do Massachusetts merchant, Gerry was a Harvard graduate with both BA and MA degrees. He had served six years as a delegate to Congress where he signed the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. Gerry also represented his state in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, in which he delivered 113 speeches—the sixth most prolific speaker—and made 55 motions—the fourth highest number presented by any delegate. Having an innate fear of “the excesses of democracy” as exemplified by Shays’s Rebellion, Gerry supported many provisions in the Constitution, but denigrated the Constitution’s insufficient federal features, the small size of the House of Representatives, and the lack of a bill of rights. In the end, Gerry joined George Mason and Edmund Randolph of Virginia as the only delegates who refused to sign the Constitution on 17 September 1787.
Several references in the Federal Farmer point to the likelihood that the author had been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Melancton Smith was not a delegate; and, in fact, New York’s two Antifederalist delegates had left the Convention by 10 July and thus could not have shared information from the Convention with Smith after that date. Furthermore, many of Gerry’s statements in his Convention speeches were indeed similar to stances taken by the Federal Farmer.
Gerry seems likely to be the author of Federal Farmer because the moderate tone of the pamphlets corresponds with Gerry’s temperate attitude toward the Constitution. Unlike Gerry, both Richard Henry Lee and Melancton Smith were ardent Antifederalists who at the time when Federal Farmer was published demanded that amendments be adopted before the Constitution was ratified. Smith was far more likely to have written the sixteen essays under the pseudonym “Brutus” printed in the New York Journal from 18 October 1787 to 10 April 1788 and the twenty-six-page pamphlet signed by “Plebeian” published in New York City on 17 April 1788. Smith’s ardency in favoring previous amendments abated only after news arrived in the New York Convention on 2 July 1788 that Virginia had ratified the Constitution—well after both Federal Farmer pamphlets had been published.
Before returning home after the Constitutional Convention adjourned on 17 September 1787, Gerry traveled and remained in New York City for at least six weeks where his young wife Ann and their baby daughter had resided with Ann’s parents while Gerry attended the Convention in Philadelphia. It was during Gerry’s residency in New York City that he wrote the first Federal Farmer pamphlet. In explaining his refusal to sign the Constitution, Gerry, still residing in New York, wrote two letters both dated 18 October—one to James Warren, the speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives and the other to the Massachusetts state legislature. In the letter to Warren, Gerry wrote that “I expected e’er this to have been in Massachusetts but am detained here longer than I expected . . . I shall submit on my return, or by Letter, if I should not leave this City in a few Days, my Reasons to the legislature for dissenting from the Convention, & shall write them by post a short Letter to this effect.” With his “short Letter,” Gerry enclosed a broadside printing of the Constitution and told the legislature that he would submit his reasons “on which my objections are grounded.” Gerry wrote that “It was painful for me, on a subject of such national importance, to differ from the respectable members who signed the constitution: But conceiving as I did, that the liberties of America were not secured by the system, it was my duty to oppose it.” After summarizing his objections to the Constitution, he concluded “that as the welfare of the union requires a better Constitution than the [Articles of] Confederation, I shall think it my duty as a citizen of Massachusetts, to support that which shall be finally adopted, sincerely hoping it will secure the liberty and happiness of America.”
Before receiving Gerry’s letter, the Massachusetts legislature on 25 October adopted resolutions calling a state convention to meet on 9 January 1788. The Massachusetts Senate read Gerry’s letter on 31 October and the state House of Representatives read it on 2 November. The letter was then printed in the Massachusetts Centinel on 3 November. With the state convention called, there was no longer a need for Gerry to submit his amplified objections to the legislature. Consequently, Gerry’s objections morphed into the first Federal Farmer pamphlet.
Throughout the public debate over the Constitution, Gerry maintained a low profile. He was repeatedly denounced as one of the three non-signers of the Constitution. His published letter to the legislature was vehemently condemned. He was unfavorably compared to the Shaysites. Henry Jackson, a Boston merchant, declared that Gerry’s “infamous” letter “has done more injury to this Country . . . than he will be able to make atonement in his whole life . . . damn him–damn him” (Jackson to Henry Knox, 5 November 1787). It was this kind of harsh, ceaseless criticism that convinced Gerry to keep his Federal Farmer anonymity. Because most of his political connections supported the Constitution and many of his political opponents were now Antifederalists, Gerry opted not to campaign against ratifying the Constitution.
One irony has developed in the historiography of the Federal Farmer. In writing both pamphlets, Federal Farmer addressed his letters to a “Republican.” No one has identified this letter recipient. But it seems likely that Melancton Smith is the Republican. As a member of Congress in 1786 and as part of Governor Clinton’s inner circle, Smith wrote two pamphlets under the pseudonym of A Republican that justified New York’s qualified adoption of the Impost of 1783 that included several provisos that Congress deemed unacceptable.
The ratification debate was more than a clash of ideas—it was a battle over how those ideas would be interpreted and remembered. Anonymity allowed reasoned arguments to withstand partisan attacks, and the Federal Farmer pamphlets stand as a testament to this enduring struggle. Today, as political discourse unfolds across digital platforms, anonymity remains a double-edged sword—protecting dissenting voices while also enabling misinformation. The Federal Farmer reminds us that the challenge of separating thoughtful critique from partisan distortion is nothing new. Just as in the 18th century, we must ask ourselves: how can we foster meaningful debate without allowing political affiliations to dictate the legitimacy of an argument?