A Maryland Farmer was the pseudonym used by an anonymous Anti-Federalist writer during the U.S. Constitution ratification debates. The authorship is often attributed to John Francis Mercer, a Maryland politician and planter.
A Maryland Farmer’s essays warned that the Constitution would create a dangerously consolidated national government that would obliterate state sovereignty. He argued that the proposed system would establish an aristocratic tyranny controlled by wealthy elites who would oppress ordinary citizens. A Maryland Farmer contended that the Constitution’s broad powers would inevitably lead to the destruction of republican government.
Refutes the claim that bills of rights are royal grants by citing the English Bill of Rights of 1688, arguing it was created by convention as a declaration of inherent natural rights, and warns that without explicit protections, Americans will be defenseless against federal power.
Argues that the proposed Constitution creates a national rather than federal government, warns it will not prevent foreign corruption but may lead to civil war and despotism like other large empires.
Divides America into three classes: wealthy aristocrats and creditors favoring British-style government, indecisive moderates and trimmers, and rigid republicans with yeomanry, warning that without balanced parties despotism will replace freedom.
Argues that representation-based government inevitably fails through corruption and instability, claiming that only fixed social orders can provide stable governance, and warns that America’s experiment will likely collapse like England’s Commonwealth.
Advocates for Swiss-style direct democracy over representative government, arguing that the Swiss cantons prove ordinary citizens can govern themselves effectively while avoiding the corruption and instability plaguing representative systems like England’s.
Refutes Aristides’ claim that state and federal courts share concurrent jurisdiction, arguing that federal courts must have exclusive authority over constitutional cases to prevent chaos and absurd scenarios like state judges declaring federal laws void.
Argues that religious tyranny stems from corrupt civil government, using Roman and Gothic examples to prove that civil and religious liberty are inseparably linked.
