George Mason On Big Government

When The Federalists 

Triumphed Over The Anti Federalists

In my quest to find out more how an ever expanding big government was possible in the United States Of America and to pinpoint the historical origins of it, I went back to the Progressives era, the American Civil War and so on.

However, only recently I discovered arguments put forward by the Anti Federalists and I was surprised how they had anticipated the outcome and development of a stronger central government. It also appears to me that in present day America, the Anti Federalists have been almost forgotten or they are conveniently overlooked. Victors write history.

I think it quite possible now in hindsight that the decision to implement a stronger central government with the adoption of the new US Constitution in 1787 was a big mistake leading up to the big government we have now. The concerns and warnings of the Anti Federalists were not taken seriously.

George Mason In His Own Words

The following quote is excerpted from “Federal v. Consolidated Government” by George Mason published on 6/4/1788 (emphasis added):

“I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it.

The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments.

Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed?

These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one National Government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs?

It is ascertained by history, that there never was a Government, over a very extensive country, without destroying the liberties of the people: History also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shew us, that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic Governments over so extensive a country; but that popular Governments can only exist in small territories. …

I solemnly declare, that no man is a greater friend to a firm Union of the American States than I am: But, Sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles?”

I tip my hat to George Mason!