Revisiting the Anti-Federalists: George Mason and 'A Farmer'

As the United States approaches various milestones of its founding, a debate persists over which historical figures deserve greater recognition for shaping American liberty. While names like Jefferson and Madison dominate public consciousness, two separate assessments from Reason spotlight less-heralded figures whose skepticism of centralized authority and dedication to individual rights provide a different perspective on the Revolutionary era. These critiques focus on George Mason and the pseudonymous Anti-Federalist writer known as "A Farmer," both of whom were instrumental in challenging the initial structure of the U.S. Constitution.

Ilya Somin, writing for Reason, characterizes George Mason as a deeply underrated visionary whose primary contribution was the Virginia Declaration of Rights. This document, according to the piece, established the essential blueprint for the federal Bill of Rights. Somin notes that Mason’s refusal to sign the Constitution was driven by a prescient fear regarding the lack of explicit liberty protections and the potential for the executive branch to abuse pardon powers. However, the editorial acknowledges Mason’s profound moral contradictions, emphasizing that while he labeled slavery a national sin, he remained a lifelong slaveholder who never freed his workers.

In a separate entry for the same Reason series, the author champions "A Farmer," a pseudonymous writer believed to be John Francis Mercer, as a vital voice for radical decentralization. The piece argues that "A Farmer" offered a superior vision of freedom by warning that a powerful federal government would eventually mirror the corrupt and imperialist tendencies of European monarchies. The author highlights the Farmer’s preference for local self-governance and the "power of exit" over a strong national executive. This perspective suggests that the true measure of a society’s health is found in peaceful, unremarkable lives rather than in the grand, often violent, narratives of national history.

Both editorials converge on the idea that the Anti-Federalist tradition provided essential safeguards against the concentration of state power. While one focuses on the specific legislative legacy of a known statesman and the other on the ideological purity of an anonymous dissenter, both suggest that modern American governance would benefit from revisiting these early warnings about centralized authority.