The debate surrounding the ratification of the U.S. Constitution wasn’t a unanimous affair. To fully appreciate the foundations of American governance, it’s crucial to understand the arguments raised by the Anti-Federalists. Among these, the essays penned by “Brutus,” generally attributed to Robert Yates, stand out as a powerful critique of the Federalist position. Brutus No. 1, addressed to the citizens of New York, is particularly insightful. This article will delve into the overall message of Brutus 1, exploring the core concerns the Anti-Federalists had regarding the proposed Constitution.
In essence, Brutus No. 1 questions whether the thirteen states should consolidate into a single, large republic, as advocated by the Federalists. Brutus dissects the Constitution, arguing that it would create a federal government with “absolute and uncontrollable power.” He identifies the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) as primary sources of this expansive power.
Brutus believed these clauses would effectively render state governments powerless. He posits that any state constitution or law conflicting with the U.S. Constitution would be nullified. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress could repeal state laws that hindered the collection of federal taxes deemed “necessary and proper” for the general welfare. Moreover, the Supremacy Clause dictates that federal laws made in accordance with the Constitution are the supreme law of the land, leaving states with no legal recourse.
Brutus argues that the proposed government is not a confederation of smaller republics, but a complete and consolidated government. He sees essentially no limit on the federal legislative power to tax. While technically restricted to raising money for debts, the general welfare, and common defense, Brutus contends these restrictions are illusory. The legislature itself determines what is “necessary” for the general welfare and common defense, effectively granting them unlimited authority to levy taxes.
Furthermore, states are prohibited from issuing paper money or imposing duties on imports or exports without Congressional consent, with any net revenue going to the United States. This leaves direct taxation as the states’ primary means of supporting their governments and discharging debts. However, the federal government also possesses the power of direct taxation, potentially squeezing out the states’ ability to raise revenue due to the limited financial resources of citizens. Without funds, states cannot sustain themselves, leading to an absorption of their powers by the federal government and the elimination of state sovereignty and autonomy.
The core message of Brutus No. 1 centers on the potential for the federal government to become too powerful and infringe upon the rights of states and individuals. Brutus feared the loss of liberty and self-governance through the consolidation of power in a central authority. He questioned whether a large republic could truly represent the diverse interests of its citizens and worried about the potential for tyranny. The overall message of Brutus 1 is a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked power and the importance of preserving state sovereignty to protect individual liberties. Brutus 1 advocated that a large, consolidated republic was antithetical to freedom and self-government.
Today, debates persist regarding the appropriate scope and power of the federal government. Regardless of individual viewpoints, Brutus’s arguments remain relevant, highlighting the enduring tension between national unity and individual liberty. Brutus’s essay is a reminder that the structure of government has real consequences on the lives of ordinary people.
