Agrippa was the pseudonym used by an Anti-Federalist writer during the ratification debates of the U.S. Constitution. The authorship is most commonly attributed to James Winthrop, a Harvard-educated librarian and political thinker from Massachusetts.
Agrippa’s essays opposed the proposed Constitution, arguing that it would centralize power in a way that threatened state sovereignty and individual freedoms. He criticized the lack of a Bill of Rights and warned that the new government could easily become tyrannical, particularly through an unchecked judiciary. Agrippa believed explicit protections for civil liberties were essential to prevent the abuse of power.
Argues the Constitution endangers liberty through inadequate representation, unchecked taxation, standing armies, and costly, remote government that undermines free industry and established local justice.
Defends Massachusetts’ stable self-government and civil order as proof that liberty fosters prosperity, warning against surrendering this successful system for a distant, rigid federal authority.
Defends the current state governments as prosperous and just, warns that the proposed Constitution will crush public credit and local trade, and urges amendments before risking national division.
Argues that large consolidated republics collapse into despotism, and warns that the proposed Constitution would erase local autonomy and impose one-size-fits-all laws on diverse states.
Warns that the Constitution erases state sovereignty by empowering federal courts and laws to override local authority, risking tyranny, confusion, and the rise of a permanent standing army.
Argues that the Constitution consolidates state powers under federal control, enabling unchecked regulation of trade and courts without a bill of rights, threatening local sovereignty and economic fairness.
Argues that the Constitution promotes unfair economic burdens, undermines local authority, and benefits some states over others, particularly through uneven trade regulation and taxation.
Claims that the Constitution threatens both civil liberty and state solvency by centralizing taxation and debt while ignoring natural bonds of union like commerce and mutual interest.
Warns that granting Congress unchecked control over trade, naturalization, and taxation risks moral decline, state inequality, and the loss of hard-won liberties.
Summarizes prior arguments to show that the proposed Constitution consolidates power, threatens liberty, burdens Massachusetts disproportionately, and should be replaced with limited amendments granting Congress narrowly defined trade and revenue powers.
Defends his limited federal plan against critics, warning that the proposed Constitution invites foreign influence, multiplies offices, favors elites, and undermines both domestic liberty and national respect.
