"A Bloodless Coup d'état"
The Anti- Federalists and their fight against cancel culture, woke mobs, and wannabe tyrants during America’s Critical Period.
The picture of extremism often condemned by politicians, their lackeys (or voters as you may call them), and members of media-elite today generally consists of a family who simply wants to be left the hell alone. If you believe in self-reliance, independence, and freedom, chances are you’re on some kind of watchlist (if you are, in the words of action hero John McClane, “Welcome to the party, pal.”).
Consequences of cancel culture and the tyrannical, violent spirit of the woke mob is often thought of as a new phenomenon. But understand this. From the time of America’s infancy, those who fought for freedom and valued individual autonomy subjected themselves to the unpredictable, violent whims of vengeful politicians and their followers as well.
After all, government (not governance) is antithetical to peace. It makes sense those supporting a society built on voluntary interactions would come under heavy bureaucratic-style fire.
The Anti-Federalist Movement
When you learn about the ratification of the Constitution in history class (if they still teach it) you are taught the document saved a war-ravaged, unstable mess of territories from its inevitable demise by enacting a strong, centralized government resting soundly upon a series of checks and balances.
The part where students learn about the Articles of Confederation and the successes that came with it is completely skipped over with teachers diving right in to the story of the Federalists. They teach these treasured heroes swooped in and saved America during what is commonly referred to by historians as the country’s “Critical Period” when it could have dissolved into utter anarchy (yet another purposeful misuse of the term). Had it not been for these political saviors who just plain knew better than your average farmer, businessman, or property owner, who knows what would have become of America’s fledgling territories.
Of course, these politicians were backed by central government devotees who still held deeply flawed philosophical beliefs thanks to a generation-defying, cultural holdover from British monarchy.
Despite recently fighting a war over tyranny, many of America’s early citizens got to work voting for the same types of draconian policies that caused them to sail to the New World in search of economic freedom in the first place.
Federalists such as still-coveted Alexander Hamilton and John Adams advocated for a centralized government with a centralized bank who could levy taxes at will, command a standing army, and have monopolistic control over currency.
This sounded awfully familiar to Anti-Federalists (King George, anybody?), so they set about the honorable task of battling these concerning regulatory policies with the power of the pen.
In a series of essays and articles now known as The Anti-Federalist Papers published in various news publications, libertarian thinkers who were lawyers, local representatives, and farmers eloquently wrote to readers about the dangers of a centralized power that had the ability to essentially nullify states rights and even worse, individual rights.
Though what became known as the Anti- Federalist Party had strong support from freedom-loving individuals, big government supporters did what big government supporters do. Instead of taking on the arduous task of dismantling the Anti-Federslists’ ideas via reason and discourse, supporters of the Federalists and even some Federalists themselves attacked Anti- Federalists’ character, threatened them, and levied political power to stifle their opposing voices.
They did this with such vigor that the Anti-Federalists had to write under pseudonyms. Some still retain their anonymity today. However, one of the most prominent (and beloved) Anti-Federalists, writing under the pen name “Brutus” (yes, that Brutus, in honor of one of the assassins of OG dictator Julius Caesar), was lawyer and New York native Robert Yates.
Other Anti-Federalist writers whose identities are still debated today include “Cato” and “Federal Farmer.”
Constitutional Convention
In 1787, representatives from the states gathered in Philadelphia for weeks debating over the details of what would replace the country’s current Articles of Confederation and become the United States Constitution.
While political heavyweights like Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin are often cited as being key figures behind the success of the convention, we owe a great debt to the Anti-Federalists’ role at the convention as well.
Yes, they were there- but history class probably skipped over that part.
By the time the convention rolled around, Anti-Federalism was a bonafide movement. Efforts by politicians and federal government- loving voters to have freedom-minded individuals canceled, blacklisted, and threatened into submission backfired. What started as a few fringe everyday citizens enlightening others about history’s undeniable fate when it comes to centralized, authoritarian government turned into a wide-ranging wave of supporters who passionately valued the freedom they had already shed so much blood, sweat, and tears for.
Notable anti-federalists at the Constitutional Convention include Patrick Henry (the “give me liberty or give me death” guy) and Samuel Adams (the beer came much later).
The central-government proponents set up what late Austrian school economist Murray Rothbard describes as a “bloodless coup d'état.” Prior to 1787, Hamiltonian-type attempts to amend the Articles of Confederation to make it more pliable for centralized government did not rally much support aside from communities of elites and those who could benefit from government subsidies (commercial farmers). The Articles of Confederation was also purposefully sclerotic; it was almost impossible to change or grow the government due to wording of the document (unanimous approval was needed from all states in many instances).
Because of this, Hamilton and fellow federal government groupies called for a convention under the guise of once again attempting to amend the articles already in place. However, once they locked the doors and windows to the public at what is now known as Independence Hall, their true plans for an entirely new document that would replace the ratified Articles of Confederation came to light. While politicians were trying to do away with the society’s official legal system, society was none-the-wiser.
They even almost succeeded in ratifying the new Constitution without a Bill of Rights. That’s right, the Anti-Federalists’ role was so important at the meeting we wouldn’t have a Bill of Rights without them. The original draft of the Constitution only contained the Articles, which essentially spells out the federal government’s enumerated powers. But thanks to clauses like the National Supremacy clause and the Necessary and Proper clause, and broad stroke phrases like “general welfare,” these enumerated powers give them carte blanche to do almost anything - as is clear now with our current political climate.
Anti-federalists refused to sign, and demanded a Bill of Rights be included in the Constitution that lays out every American’s inalienable rights that can never be taken away.
Hamilton acquiesced and agreed to include 10 amendments to the Constitution listing rights such as the right to bear arms, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech that the government can not infringe upon.
After the conclusion of the convention, the Federalists launched what can accurately be described as a brilliant PR campaign to rally citizen support for their newly signed document. When citizens expressed understandable concern over the vast amount of power the Constitution gives federal authority instead of telling them the truth, that indeed the document under the guise of “democracy” does give federal government the ability to assume unlimited power, they name-dropped instead (as politicians love to do).
To ease fears they used the brand power of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, strong Federalist supporters who held near-deity status for the majority of Americans.
One Federalist supporter at the convention remarked in regards to Washington that men like him were, “entitled to the universal confidence of the people of America.”
Citizens were pacified by newspaper columnists who printed copy assuring men such as Washington and Franklin, “have the good of America at heart.”
While George Washington and Benjamin Franklin had done a wealth of good for America, and could have been approaching the ratification of the Constitution with the purest of intentions, the history behind their name shouldn't have been what sold the people on the document, it should have been the document itself.
Power corrupts, therefore those who seek power are easily corruptible.
The Anti-Federalists knew this.
The Anti-Federalists Were Right
The version we often learn of the Constitution’s origin story is rooted in romanticized myth due to politicized historians who often favor strong centralized authorities, thus clouding their judgment when it comes to the victors and losers of any given historical event they are retelling.
Though Constitutionalists can at times use the document to keep enemies of liberty at bay, time and again history shows our rights supposedly protected by the Constitution are trampled upon ad nauseam by politicians and their supporters.
The Anti-Federalists understood the slippery slope that was at stake in ratifying the Constitution in place of the Articles of Confederation.
Brutus wrote in his first essay that would end up being included in the Anti-Federalist Papers:
“...it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way.”
While the Federalists at times got things right, the prophetic wisdom of the Anti-Federalists has been largely ignored at the risk of our own peril.
History buffs, constitutionalists, and those interested in the founding of the country often take time to read the highly regarded and often quoted Federalist Papers. I urge them to also pick up a copy of the Anti-Federalist Papers and become immersed in the Anti-Federalists’ love of liberty, self- reliance, and independence.
Unfortunately, the fears the Anti-Federalists had regarding a centralized federal government came true. These days due to excess, predatory regulations and draconian laws, the average citizen unknowingly breaks on average three federal criminal laws a day.
Now more than ever we need to heed early libertarian thinkers’ timeless advice and lead lives rooted in a philosophy based on reason, voluntary consent, and decentralization.
Less than 100 years after the Constitution was ratified, observing egregious governmental overreach and tyranny in 1867, anarchist and abolitionist Lysander Spooner said this in his essay, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority:
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
Freedom Journal runs solely on voluntary donations. If you’d like to help me continue sharing inspirational, thought-provoking content there are a couple of ways you can contribute.
Donate via Stripe if a credit card is your preferred method.
You can also donate via PayPal here.
Any amount is greatly appreciated :)
Peace, Love, and Liberty.
-Rebecca-
Ecclesiastes' "nothing new under the sun" comes to mind!