The Federal Farmer was the pseudonym used by an anonymous Anti-Federalist writer during the U.S. Constitution ratification debates. The authorship is often attributed to Richard Henry Lee, a Virginia statesman.
The Federal Farmer’s essays opposed the Constitution, arguing it would centralize power and weaken state authority. He criticized the lack of a Bill of Rights, fearing that without such protections, the new government could become tyrannical. The Federal Farmer called for amendments to safeguard individual liberties and maintain the balance of power between the states and the federal government.
Raises concern that the proposed Constitution seeks to centralize authority under a consolidated national government, warns against hasty ratification, and argues that only a limited federal system—preserving state autonomy—can protect liberty and secure lasting stability.
Criticizes the Constitution for centralizing power without proper representation or local justice, warning it will lead to neglect, military enforcement, and the erosion of state authority and liberty.
Critiques the Constitution’s structure as elitist and unbalanced, warning that limited representation, unchecked taxation, and federal control over elections, the militia, and the judiciary will erode state power and popular liberty.
Warns that the Constitution grants vague and unchecked powers to the federal government, lacks essential rights protections, undermines jury trials, and enables a ruling elite to suppress liberty under the guise of law and treaty.
Rejects blind adoption of the Constitution, warning that it centralizes power among elites, lacks true representation, invites class division, and should be revised by state conventions to protect liberty, property, and democratic stability.
Outlines essential constitutional principles, critiques centralization and inadequate representation, and calls for well-defined amendments to preserve liberty, secure rights, and balance federal and state power in a lasting republican system.
Contends that true liberty relies on broad, balanced representation among all social classes, critiques the proposed House for being too small and elite-driven, and warns that such narrow design risks corruption, imbalance, and the erosion of public trust.
Asserts that liberty in England arose from balanced, class-based representation, warns that the Constitution’s small, elite legislature mirrors Rome’s failed tribunes, and urges distributed state power to protect against creeping aristocracy and centralized abuse.
Warns that a small, elite Congress invites corruption, fails to represent the broader populace, and risks shifting power from the many to the few through patronage, taxation abuse, and lack of meaningful constitutional safeguards.
Warns that the proposed Constitution strips the people and states of meaningful checks on federal power, enabling gradual elite consolidation through underrepresentation, unchecked taxation, military control, and systemic exclusion of democratic safeguards.
Critiques the Senate’s structure and powers, warning that long terms, lack of recall, absence of rotation, and control over appointments and treaties could consolidate influence among disconnected elites and erode public accountability.
Criticizes the Constitution’s vague election provisions, warning they permit manipulation through plurality voting, non-local candidates, and congressional control, and calls for fixed district elections with majority rule to preserve democratic representation.
Critiques the Constitution’s appointment structure as a dangerous consolidation of power, calling for restrictions on legislators’ eligibility for office and proposing an independent executive council to ensure integrity and accountability in federal appointments.
Examines appointment powers and executive structure, favoring broader legislative and departmental checks while warning that indefinite presidential re-eligibility invites consolidation, corruption, and hereditary ambition.
Examines the proposed judiciary’s expansive powers, cautioning that it diminishes jury authority, permits judicial discretion over both law and fact, and risks entrenching arbitrary rule through loosely defined equity jurisdiction.
Stresses the necessity of explicitly enumerating individual rights in the Constitution—such as jury trials, freedom of the press, and protections against quartering soldiers—to prevent federal overreach and preserve liberty beyond vague general principles or inferred reservations.
Questions the necessity of granting sweeping federal taxation powers, warning that bypassing state governments threatens the balance of a true federal republic and risks consolidating authority in ways historically proven to erode liberty.
Warns that expansive federal powers, especially over the military, judiciary, and federal districts, threaten to erode state authority and concentrate influence in an elite, unaccountable capital.
