What was the general argument made in Brutus 1?

How far the clause in the 8th section of the 1st article may operate to do away all idea of confederated states, and to effect an entire consolidation of the whole into one general government, it is impossible to say. The powers given by this article are very general and comprehensive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing almost any law. A power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution, all powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, is a power very comprehensive and definite [indefinite?], and may, for ought I know, be exercised in a such manner as entirely to abolish the state legislatures. Suppose the legislature of a state should pass a law to raise money to support their government and pay the state debt, may the Congress repeal this law, because it may prevent the collection of a tax which they may think proper and necessary to lay, to provide for the general welfare of the United States? For all laws made, in pursuance of this constitution, are the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of the different states to the contrary notwithstanding.--By such a law, the government of a particular state might be overturned at one stroke, and thereby be deprived of every means of its support.

It is not meant, by stating this case, to insinuate that the constitution would warrant a law of this kind; or unnecessarily to alarm the fears of the people, by suggesting, that the federal legislature would be more likely to pass the limits assigned them by the constitution, than that of an individual state, further than they are less responsible to the people. But what is meant is, that the legislature of the United States are vested with the great and uncontroulable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers. And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, 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. This disposition, which is implanted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority, and having such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the federal government succeeds at all. It must be very evident then, that what this constitution wants of being a complete consolidation of the several parts of the union into one complete government, possessed of perfect legislative, judicial, and executive powers, to all intents and purposes, it will necessarily acquire in its exercise and operation.

The Founders' Constitution
Volume 3, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, Document 4
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s4.html
The University of Chicago Press

Storing, Herbert J., ed. The Complete Anti-Federalist. 7 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

Do you want to save dozens of hours in time? Get your evenings and weekends back? Be able to teach Brutus No. 1: The Anti-Federalist Papers to your students?

Our worksheet bundle includes a fact file and printable worksheets and student activities. Perfect for both the classroom and homeschooling!

If you're familiar with Alexander Hamilton, you know he played a huge role in writing The Federalist Papers. What if I told you there was another set of essays arguing AGAINST the ratification of the US Constitution? That's the Brutus Papers.

Between the signing of the US Constitution on September 17, 1787, and ratification on June 21, 1788, an essay battle waged between federalists (supporters of ratification) and Anti-federalists (those against ratification) writing essays for and against the ratification of the Constitution in New York newspapers. We of course, know who won the argument but that does not make the Anti-federalists papers any less valuable. The Brutus papers were the most impactful of the Anti-federalists papers and an understanding of them helps to develop an understanding of the origins of some of the problems the United States faces till this day!

Brutus Papers Summary

The Brutus Papers are the most famous 16 of the 85 Anti-Federalist papers, intended to challenge the United States Constitution and prevent it from being ratified. The Brutus Papers were written under the pen name "Brutus" and published in New York. They discuss a wide range of reasons why members of post-colonial American society did not approve of the new government being formed.

The Articles of Confederation, Author: Alexander Purdie, PD US

The Articles of Confederation, the governing document that preceded the Constitution, formed a loosely organized group of states without a strong centralized authority. After the American Revolutionary War, there was enormous fear of large, centralized powers that reminded former colonists too much of what they had just experienced under British control. To avoid this problem, the Second Continental Congress created the Articles of Confederation with an incredibly limited government in mind but the flaws in their logic became apparent within a short period of time.

Shay’s Rebellion, an armed insurrection in Massachusetts was the final push needed to reconvene American leaders and draft a new guding document. In 1787 the Constitutional Convention was held in order to draft a new Constitution for the United States of America and after it was drafted, there was the final step of ratifying it. It is this debate around ratification where the Anti-federalists (and thus the Brutus Papers) and the Federalists emerged, each with their own reasons for or against the Constitutions ratification.

If you are interested in learning more about the argument of the federalists, check out our Federalists Papers article!

Shay's Rebellion took place from 1786-1787 and was centered around grievances, primarily from farmers, relating to economic policies that were creating extreme financial harship for them. Henry Knox, The United States' first Secretary of War, reported in a letter to George Washington detailing the issue, saying:

"They (the rebels) see the weakness of Government, they feel at once their own poverty compared with the opulent, and their own force, and they are determined to make use of the latter in order to remedy the former. Their creed is that the property of the United States has been protected from the confiscations of Britain by the joint exertions of all, and therefore ought to be the common property of all…Our government must be braced, changed, or altered to secure our lives and property."

The rebellion ended rather quietly, with many of the rebels, including Daniel Shays, being pardoned for their roles in it. While there were many other reasons to rethink the Articles of Confederation, it was Shay's Rebellion that finally forced the governments hand.

The Anti-federalists argued against ratifying the Constitution and are believed to include George Clinton, Governor of New York (Cato), Patrick Henry, Samuel Bryan (Centinel), Richard Henry Lee (The Federal Farmer), and Robert Yates (Brutus). They felt a powerful central government would lead to the compromise of freedom and tyranny and that government must be democratic and local. They were fearful of a ruling class dominating political decisions.

The authors of the Anti-federalists are not known for sure, but there is strong evidence to support the idea that they were primarily authored by the aforementioned men.

Brutus Papers Authors

Like the other Anti-federalist Papers, the Brutus papers were written using a pseudonym. The pen name “Brutus” recalls either Lucius Junius Brutus, who was responsible for ousting Tarquinius Superbus, the last King of Rome, or one of the people who murdered Julius Caesar, Marcus Junius Brutus. The author of the 16 Brutus papers is believed to be Robert Yates, a Delegate to the United States Constitutional Convention.

Differences Between Brutus and Federalist Papers

Portrait of Alexander Hamilton, Author: John Trumbull, Wiki.commons, PD USPortrait of John Jay, Author: Gilbert Stuart, Wiki.commons, CC-PD-MarkPortrait of James Madison, Author: John Vanderlyn, Wiki.commons, CC-PD-Mark

The Federalist Papers were in support of ratifying the Constitution while the Brutus Papers were against it. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, authors of the Federalist Papers, held the views opposing Brutus. The Federalists saw a powerful central government as a necessary and useful component of the nation’s new government. Brutus, in contrast, preferred to see power in the hands of the states. The Federalists believed the checks and balances built into the new government would safeguard the people from tyranny but Brutus didn’t trust the system of checks and balances and thought power should remain primarily in the hands of the states. He saw no end to the control that the federal government would attempt to seize and wanted to protect states from this kind of abuse.

John Jay looks like your teacher reading one of your classmate's tests that did not use Study Smarter to study for it, Madison does not seem too thrilled by your friends decision either.

Brutus Papers Arguments

The Brutus Papers offer a range of criticism regarding the Constitution. Some of its concerns related to the Necessary and Proper Clause, which allowed Congress to create any law it considered necessary “…for executing its other powers and those of the federal government as a whole.” (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8).

Brutus I, V

Brutus I and V are concerned with the implied powers given to the government by the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. Brutus I expressed inherent danger in the Necessary and Proper Clause and believed that states would lose power. Brutus V stated that the Necessary and Proper Clause empowered Congress to create any law they chose.

Brutus II

In this Anti-federalist paper, Brutus criticizes the Constitution because it doesn’t contain a Bill of Rights that would guarantee certain rights and liberties to people.

Brutus III

Brutus argues that representation isn’t fair under the Constitution, taking issue, especially with the three-fifths clause that counted 3 citizens for every 5 slaves to determine the number of state representatives in Congress. He also believed the Constitution was wrong in allowing slavery to continue.

Brutus IV

Brutus argues that the wealthy would take over the nation by using their status to control elections. This would make voting inaccessible and unfair to average Americans and compromise the integrity of the democratic process.

Brutus VI, VII

Brutus VI and VII highlight concerns about taxes. Brutus VI fears that the unbridled power to tax would empower Congress to overtax states to the point that they wouldn’t be able to function anymore. Brutus VII advocates for limiting the power of Congress to tax.

Brutus VIII, IX, X

Brutus VIII, IX, and X are concerned about the Federal government’s constitutional right to create a military. Brutus VIII speaks out against the federal government's right to create standing armies and national debt. Brutus IX is a reply to Federalist Paper 24 and rebuts the idea that citizens could contain a standing army. Brutus X asserts that standing armies are harmful.

Brutus XI, XII

Brutus XI focuses on the Supreme Court and the potential for the abuse of power by Justices who are free to interpret the Constitution as they choose. Brutus XII addresses the relationship between the Supreme Court and the potential for the judiciary to control Congress. There is a fear that federal courts will overpower courts at the state level.

Brutus XIII

Along with the power to tax, allowing citizens to file lawsuits against states in federal court would impoverish and eliminate the states altogether.

Brutus XIV, XV

Brutus XIV is very significant. It resulted in the addition of parts of the 5th amendment and the entire 6th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. It also argues against establishing a new court. Brutus XV states that the Constitution reinstated destructive aspects of the British system the Americans had just fought against. Brutus XV also advocated for term limits on Supreme Court justices and subjecting courts to legislative review.

The 5th amendment covers several rigths concerning criminal proceedings but Brutus Paper XIV directly influenced the addition to the amendment that prevents an individual from being tried for the same crime twice; this is called "double jeopardy."

The 6th amendment guareentes an individual the right to a speedy trial, to confront witnesses testifying against them, and access to a quick, public trial conducted by a jury of their peers in the district where they are accused of their crime.

Brutus XVI

Brutus XVI fears the long terms of the senate and its role in all three governmental branches.

Brutus I: A Closer Look

Brutus I is the most important of the Anti-Federalist papers. It is not in favor of the Constitution or of a centralized federal government. This paper argues against the ratification of the Constitution and prefers power to be left in the hands of the states as opposed to a large, central government.

Brutus I points out that if power is handed over to a large government, it would likely be impossible to get it back. Ratifying the Constitution is a decision of extreme importance, irreversible, and not to be taken lightly.

Brutus I is concerned with the Necessary and Proper Clause, believing it would give limitless control to the federal government and eliminate state rights. He is against the Supremacy Clause for the same reason as well, believing it would give too much power to Congress to enact any law it saw fit. Brutus felt these clauses gave too much power, without constraint to the government, which was what Americans had just fought a war to escape.

Brutus I fears that the limited powers that were relegated to the states would eventually be taken away by the central government. The author of Brutus I also takes issue with Congress being allowed to issue taxes, feeling this could lead to an abuse of power. He believed these taxes could provide funds to establish military forces which would compromise the freedom of the people.

Brutus stresses the need for smaller-scale, democratic means of governing a society he felt this was the only way to succeed. He references Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome which were governed effectively until they grew too large and overbearing on the freedoms of their citizens. In summary, Brutus I is for placing the majority of power into the hands of the states, small-scale federal government, and democratic principles.

What is the argument of Brutus?

Which of the following best characterizes the general argument made in Brutus 1?

What is the main idea of Brutus 1 quizlet?

What did Brutus 1 argue quizlet?