Anti-Federalist Papers: Brutus No. 2 and No. 5 Analyzed

Introduction

The Anti-Federalist Papers were a collection of essays composed in opposition to the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution. They represented a diverse range of objections and focused on various criticisms of the newly formulated Constitution. A notable series of these articles appeared under the fictitious name "Brutus." The general belief is that Brutus was actually Robert Yates, though others claim the author was Melancton Smith or Thomas Tredwell. All of the Brutus articles were directed at the inhabitants of New York.

Background on the Anti-Federalist Papers

The Anti-Federalist articles published under the pen name "Brutus" in editions of the New York Journal voice a number of concerns and protests against the new Constitution. While numerous constitutional opponents composed and published Anti-Federalist essays, those written by "Brutus" are considered among the most effective in resisting ratification. The second article under this pseudonym examines individual rights through the lens of the social compact model advanced by John Locke, while also objecting to the Constitution's lack of a Bill of Rights. Brutus No. 5, meanwhile, explores Article I, Section 8, the clause addressing Congressional control over revenue. This paper examines the most salient and compelling arguments put forward by Brutus in his second and fifth articles, evaluating them for depth and strength, and considers how well they represent the objections raised by Anti-Federalists more broadly.

Brutus No. 2: Social Compact, Human Nature, and the Need for a Bill of Rights

The second article by Brutus describes the purpose and nature of governance as it existed in American society at the time. Brutus explains that mankind leaves the natural state by instituting government through a social compact, in order to better secure life, material possessions, and freedom. Echoing widespread skepticism in American society toward governmental power, Brutus further argues that government is composed of human beings who share common characteristics—including the potential for greed and ambition. In a natural state, all people pursue their own interests, a pursuit often marked by the weaker being preyed upon by the strong, and the naive being exploited by the more cunning and manipulative (Kurland & Lerner).

Elected representatives, too, may pursue and abuse their authority to serve personal interests at the expense of the common good. This, Brutus contended, reinforces the need for a Bill of Rights within the newly formulated Constitution, to ensure the planned government does not neglect its duty of securing citizens' rights and freedoms. He argued that it is for this very reason that the exercise of authority ought to be curtailed within appropriate limits—just as it is at the state government level (Kurland & Lerner).

Conclusion

Together, Brutus No. 2 and No. 5 represent some of the most substantive objections raised during the ratification debate. Drawing on Lockean political philosophy and a close reading of the Constitution's text, Brutus made a compelling case that the new federal government posed a threat to individual liberties and state sovereignty alike. Both essays ultimately converge on the same demand: a Bill of Rights to constrain the power of a central government that, left unchecked, could exploit the very citizens it was meant to protect.

Works Cited

Kurland, Philip B., and Ralph Lerner. The Founders' Constitution: Rights — Brutus, No. 2. 1987, Accessed 3 Sept. 2016.

Kurland, Philip B., and Ralph Lerner. The Founders' Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 — Brutus, No. 5. 1987, Accessed 3 Sept. 2016.