1787 Occupy Manifesto

Every word of this document – except those between [ ] – is taken from the Antifederalist Papers written and published between 1787-1789 to protest the architecture of the current dysfunctional government.

(Antifederalist No. 4 – 1788) No government can flourish unless it be founded on the affection of the people. (Antifederalist No. 26 -1788) There are many among you that will not be led by the nose by rich men, and would scorn a bribe. Rich men can live easy under any government, be it ever so tyrannical. They come in for a great share of the tyranny, because they are the ministers of tyrants, and always engross the places of honor and profit, while the greater part of the common people are led by the nose, and played about by these very men, for the destruction of themselves and their class. Be wise, be virtuous, and catch the precious moment as it passes, to refuse this [dysfunctional] federal government, and extricate yourselves and posterity from tyranny, oppression, aristocratical or monarchical government.

(Antifederalist No. 55 – 1787-88) It is extremely clear that [the writers of the Constitution] had in view the several orders of men in society, which we call aristocratical, democratical, mercantile, mechanics etc., and perceived the efforts they are constantly, from interested and ambitious views, disposed to make to elevate themselves and oppress others. Each order must have a share in the business of legislation actually and efficiently. It is deceiving a people to tell them they are electors, and can choose their legislators, if they cannot, in the nature of things, choose. . . from among themselves, and [persons] genuinely like themselves.

(Antifederalist No. 1- 1787) [The Aristocracy] consist generally, . . ., of holders of public securities, men of great wealth and expectations of public office, B[an]k[er]s and L[aw]y[er]s: these with their train of dependents form the Aristocratick combination.

(Antifederalist No. 55- 1787-88) There are three kinds of aristocracy spoken of in this country-the first is a constitutional one, which [has come to] exist in the United States in our common acceptation of the word. Montesquieu, it is true, observes that where part of the persons in a society, for want of property, age, or moral character, are excluded any share in the government, the others, who alone are the constitutional electors and elected, form this aristocracy. This, according to him, exists in each of the United States, where a considerable number of persons, as all convicted of crimes, under age, or not possessed of certain property, are excluded any share in the government.

The second is an aristocratic faction, a junto of unprincipled men, often distinguished for their wealth or abilities, who combine together and make their object their private interests and aggrandizement. The existence of this description is merely accidental, but particularly to be guarded against.

The third is the natural aristocracy; this term we use to designate a respectable order of men, the line between whom and the natural democracy is in some degree arbitrary. We may place men on one side of this line, which others may place on the other, and in all disputes between the few and the many, a considerable number are wavering and uncertain themselves on which side they are, or ought to be.

(Antifederalist No. 1 – 1787) [The “Aristocratick combination”] brand with infamy every man who is not as determined and zealous in its favor as themselves. These zealous partisans may injure their own cause, and endanger the public tranquility by impeding a proper inquiry. [B]etter remain single and alone, than blindly adopt whatever a few individuals shall demand, be they ever so wise. If we can confederate upon terms that [will] secure to us our liberties, it is an object highly desirable, because of its additional security to the whole.

(Antifederalist No. 2 – 1788 [The] public credit has suffered, and . . . our public creditors have been ill used. Those inconveniences have resulted from the bad policy of Congress. But what [is to be done] on the present occasion to remedy the existing defects of the present [Congress]? There are two opinions prevailing in the world-the one, that [human] kind can only be governed by force; the other, that they are capable of freedom and a good government. Under a supposition that [human] kind can govern themselves, I would recommend that the present [Constitution] should be amended.

[The Occupy movement] is yet too young to know what we are fit for. We ought to consider, as Montesquieu says, whether the construction of the government be suitable to the genius and disposition of the people, as well as a variety of other circumstances. (Antifederalist No. 3 – 1788) We wish to make a noise in the world; and feel hurt that Europeans are not so attentive to America in peace, as they were to America in war. We are also, no doubt, desirous of cutting a figure in history.

Many of us are proud, and are frequently disappointed that office confers neither respect or difference. No [person] of merit can ever be disgraced by office. A rogue in office may be feared in some governments-[but] will be respected in none. But whose fault is it? We make them bad, by bad governments, and then abuse and despise them for being so. Our people are capable of being made anything that human nature was or is capable of, if we would only have a little patience and give them good and wholesome institutions.

If the body of the people will not govern themselves, and govern themselves well too, the consequence is unavoidable-a FEW will, and must govern them. The facility of corruption is increased in proportion as power tends by representation or delegation, to a concentration in the hands of a few. All human authority, however organized, must have confined limits, or insolence and oppression will prove the offspring of its grandeur, and the difficulty or rather impossibility of escape prevents resistance.

(Antifederalist No. 4 – 1788) We are threatened with danger [according to some,] for the non-payment of our debt[.] It is little usual for nations to send armies to collect debts. Do you believe that the mighty [China], beholding the greatest scenes that ever engaged the attention of a [leader] of that country, will divert himself from those important objects, and now call for a settlement of accounts with America? This proceeding is not warranted by good sense. Do you suppose the [Chinese] will risk a contest with the United States [?] Let [us] not . . . be told that it is not safe to reject this government. Wherefore is it not safe? We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated.

Consider what you are about to do before you part with the government. . .; revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe; similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome- -instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned . . . against faction and turbulence. [L]icentiousness is dangerous, and . . . it ought to be provided against. I acknowledge, also, the [current] form of government may effectually prevent it. Yet there is another thing it will as effectually do- -it will oppress and ruin the people.

(Antifederalist No. 6 -1787-88) The evils of anarchy have been portrayed with all the imagery of language in the growing colors of eloquence; the affrighted mind is thence led to clasp the . . . Constitution as the instrument of deliverance, as the only avenue to safety and happines. If anarchy, therefore, were the inevitable consequence of rejecting [dysfunctional government], it would be infinitely better to incur it, for even then there would be at least the chance of a good government rising out of licentiousness.

This ought to teach us to depend more on our own judgment and the nature of the case than upon the opinions of the greatest and best of men, who, from constitutional infirmities or particular situations, may sometimes view an object through a delusive medium; but the opinions of great men are more frequently the dictates of ambition or private interest.

(Antifederalist No. 7- 1787) The time in which the constitution or government of a nation undergoes any particular change, is always interesting and critical. Enemies are vigilant, allies are in suspense, friends hesitating between hope and fear; and all men are in eager expectation to see what such a change may produce.

[Denfenders of the current dysfunction have stated that objections to it] are more calculated to alarm the fears of the people than to answer any valuable end. W[ere] that the case, as it is not, will any[one] in [a] sober sense say, that the least infringement or appearance of infringement on our liberty -that liberty which has lately cost so much blood and treasure, together with anxious days and sleepless nights-ought not both to rouse our fears and awaken our jealousy?

(Antifederalist No. 8- 1788)Instead of a congress whose members could serve but three years out of six-and then to return to a level with their fellow citizens; and who were liable at all times, whenever the states might deem it necessary, to be recalled– [this] Congress, is. . .composed of a body whose members during the time they are appointed to serve, can receive no check [or balance] from their constituents [while in office].

[W]ill you be necessarily compelled either to make a bold effort to extricate yourselves from these grievous and oppressive extortions, or you will be fatigued by fruitless attempts into the quiet and peaceable surrender of those rights, for which the blood of your fellow citizens has been shed in vain. But the latter will, no doubt, be the melancholy fate of a people once inspired with the love of liberty, as the power vested in congress of sending troops for suppressing insurrections will always enable them to stifle the first struggles of freedom.

(Antifederalist No. 26- 1788) Let me entreat you, my fellows, to consider well what you are about. Read the said constitution, and consider it well before you act. Aristocracy, or government in the hands of a very few nobles, or RICH MEN, is therein concealed in the most artful wrote plan that ever was formed to entrap a free people. The contrivers of it have so completely entrapped you, and laid their plans so sure and secretly, that they have only left you to do one of two things-that is either to receive or refuse it. And in order to bring you into their snare, you may daily read new pieces published in the newspapers, in favor of this [current] government; and should a writer dare to publish any piece against it, he is immediately abused and vilified.

Look round you and observe well the RICH MEN, who are to be your only rulers, lords and masters in future! Are they not all for [the current dysfunction]? Yes! Ought not this to put you on your guard? Does not riches beget power, and power, oppression and tyranny?

Note: This proposed draft 2011 Occupy Manifesto consist of words and thoughts taken in part or in whole from the Antifederalist Papers. The words and thoughts are also in varying degrees taken out of the context that defined the ratification debates and discourse surrounding the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Below are two links: (1) to a short 6 page essay about the Antifederalist {www.apsanet.org/imgtest/ConstThoughtAntifederalists.pdf} (2) to the Antifederalist Papers – 264 pages. Educate your perspective! {freedomsadvocate.com/files/ref/TheAntiFederalistPapers.pdf}