Luther Martin, a prominent Anti-Federalist, warned that the proposed Constitution would destroy state sovereignty by concentrating power in a centralized national government.
One of the few opponents of the constitution to attend as a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention in the summer of 1787, Martin argued that this was no accident – the plan was designed to transform the United States from a union of sovereign states into a national system, setting the stage for aristocracy, the erosion of liberty, and the eventual annihilation of the power of state governments.
Luther Martin played a significant role at the Philadelphia Convention. From the outset, he championed a system that would respect the sovereignty of the states and advocated for a Bill of Rights. His underlying belief was that federalism and state sovereignty were essential to preserving individual liberty and that a centralized system would inevitably lead to tyranny.
Frustrated by the convention’s direction and the lack of support for these views, he left on September 3 with fellow Maryland delegate John Francis Mercer and refused to sign the Constitution.
On November 29, 1787, he delivered a sweeping address to the Maryland legislature, outlining his objections to the proposed Constitution. His speech highlighted the dangers of centralized power that he argued would lead to the eventual erosion of individual liberty.
Martin was accused of breaking the secrecy rules adopted by the Philadelphia Convention. While Federalists condemned his actions, Anti-Federalists praised him for exposing what they saw as dangerous schemes.
Centinel lauded his work, saying he “laid open the conclave, exposed the dark scene within, developed the mystery of the proceedings, and illustrated the machinations of ambition. His public spirit has drawn upon him the rage of the conspirators, for daring to remove the veil of secrecy, and announcing to the public the meditated, gilded mischief.”
Later published as a series of essays in pamphlets and newspapers under the title General Information, Martin’s arguments gained widespread circulation in Maryland and beyond. They quickly became a cornerstone for the Anti-Federalist opposition.
STATES ARE SOVEREIGN
State sovereignty was at the core of Martin’s objections.
He argued that states are inherently sovereign and their governments are independent. That makes them fundamentally different in function than a general government.
Martin emphasized that “a federal government is formed by the States, as States, that is, in their sovereign capacities, in the same manner as treaties and alliances are formed.”
He explained the distinction between state and federal governments, noting that in a federal system, “the parties to the compact are not the people as individuals.” That being the case, a federal system should not be ratified by “the people as individuals.”
State governments, he noted, “are to watch over and protect the rights of the individual, whether rich or poor, or of moderate circumstances.”
They also blend, modify, and check “the democratic and aristocratic influence or principles” in order to “prevent oppression or injury.”
On the other hand, a federal government “is to guard and protect the States and their rights, and to regulate their common concerns.”
Martin also viewed the move to ratify the Constitution through state conventions, rather than state legislatures, as a betrayal of the compact between the states under the Articles of Confederation.
DESTROYING SOVEREIGNTY
Because of this foundation, Martin contended that the Constitution wasn’t forming a federal government at all. He characterized it as “a national government not founded on the principles of the preservation, but the abolition or consolidation of all State governments.”
Martin argued that there were only two federal features in the Constitution – “the appointment of the senators by the States in their sovereign capacity, that is by their legislatures, and the equality of suffrage in that branch.”
Despite these lone concessions to a federal system, Martin asserted that the convention had overstepped its original purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation – a system designed to operate through the states, not directly on individuals. In his view, the proposed Constitution instead established a national government that would directly govern citizens, effectively undoing the sovereignty of the states.
He argued that the Philadelphia Convention was not intended to “form a government over the inhabitants of America, considered as individuals.” After all, they were already subject to their state governments.
“The system of government we were entrusted to prepare, was a government over these thirteen States.”
But that wasn’t how it played out. Martin argued that “we adopted principles which would be right and proper, only on the supposition that there were no State governments at all, but that all the inhabitants of this extensive continent were in their individual capacity, without government and in a state of nature.”
In effect, Martin argued that the constitutional system would function as if there were no states at all, consolidating all political power in a single national government.
He reiterated several times that because the system proposed by the constitution was national and not federal, it was therefore, “calculated and designed not to protect and preserve, but to abolish and annihilate the State governments.”
WHY NOT A NATIONAL SYSTEM?
Martin raised several objections to any national scheme, starting with the view that the continent is “much too extensive for one national government, which should have sufficient power and energy to pervade and hold in obedience and subjection all its parts, consistent with the enjoyment and preservation of liberty.”
Martin was building on the views of Montesquieu, a prominent French political theorist who heavily influenced the founding generation.
In his treatise Spirit of Laws, he argued, “It is natural for a republic to have only a small territory; otherwise it cannot long subsist.”
Montesquieu went on to point out two characteristics that undermine “an extensive republic.”
First, there are always “men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation,” who realize they can advance their own position “by oppressing his fellow-citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country.”
Second, in large territories, “the public good is sacrificed to a thousand private views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents.” In contrast, in a small republic, “the interest of the public is more obvious, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses have less extent, and, of course, are less protected.”
Martin pointed out that Montesquieu’s theories were put into practice in colonial America, and the people were used to a relatively localized system of government. Martin wrote that during the colonial period, “they had been accustomed to have all their concerns transacted within a narrow circle, their colonial districts. Their seats of government near them, “allowing them to have access, without much inconvenience when their business should require it.”
He went on to argue that “strong and energetic” state governments that could secure and protect the rights of individuals were “the only method by which an extensive continent like America could be connected and united together consistent with the principles of freedom.”
Martin lamented that this wasn’t the system that was being proposed because “a majority of the convention hastily and inconsiderately, … in their great wisdom, decided that a kind of government which a Montesquieu and a Price have declared the best calculated of any to preserve internal liberty, and to enjoy external strength and security … was totally impracticable, and they acted accordingly.”
INTENTIONAL?
Martin described three factions at the Philadelphia Convention, two of which conspired together to propose a system of “great and undefined powers.”.
The first wanted to “abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government over this extensive continent of a monarchical nature.”
He said there were very few people in this camp who “openly avowed this sentiment.”
But he said there were “a considerable number who did not openly avow it,” but nevertheless held this position anyway. Martin said this group was “covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.”
Alexander Hamilton fit into this first category – openly advocating for a national system. During the early days of the Philadelphia Convention, he pushed for a national, centralized government with almost unlimited powers, led by a president for life who would have an absolute veto over all legislation.
Martin actively opposed measures to create a powerful centralized system, including a national veto over state laws supported by James Madison. He also proposed language that eventually became the supremacy clause to limit centralized power to only those laws made “in pursuance” of the delegated powers in the Constitution.
He moved a resolution declaring, “that the Legislative acts of the U. S. made by virtue & in pursuance of the articles of Union, and all treaties made & ratified under the authority of the U. S. shall be the supreme law of the respective States, as far as those acts or treaties shall relate to the said States, or their Citizens and inhabitants.”
Martin described a second faction that wanted to restrain the state governments and opposed a monarchical system but hoped to empower their own states to the detriment of the others. Instead, they “wished to establish such a system as would give their own States undue power and influence in the government over the other States.”
Martin said the “third party was what I considered truly federal.”
According to Martin, the faction hoping for the total abolition of state governments understood they “were too weak in numbers” and knew that “the people of America would reject it if proposed to them.”
To accomplish at least some of their goals, they formed a coalition and “joined their interest with that party, who wished a system, giving particular States the power and influence over the others, procuring in return mutual sacrifices from them.”
By so doing, they were able to create a system “giving the government great and undefined powers as to its legislative and executive, well knowing that by departing from a federal system.”
This, Martin argued, “paved the way for their favourite object, the destruction of the State governments, and the introduction of monarchy.”
STANDING ARMIES
With their experience of oppression under the British military fresh in their minds, there was widespread opposition to large, permanent standing armies during the ratification period. Martin called standing armies “that engine of arbitrary power, which has so often and so successfully been used for the subversion of freedom.”
He argued that “instead of guarding against a standing army,” the proposed plan of government gave them “an express and constitutional sanction, and hath provided for its introduction.”
Martin noted that he “took the sense of the convention” and proposed limiting Congress’s power to maintain a standing army of more than a specific size during peacetime. But his proposal was rejected.
“This proposition was rejected by a majority, it being their determination, that the power of Congress to keep up a standing army, even in peace should only be restrained by their will and pleasure.”
Martin also expressed concern about federal power over the militia, warning, “As it now stands, the Congress will have the power, if they please, to march the whole militia of Maryland to the remotest part of the union, and keep them in service as long as they think proper, without being in any respect dependant upon the Government of Maryland for this unlimited exercise of power over its citizens.”
He warned that the combination of a standing army and federal power over the militia “ought to be considered the last coup de grace to the State governments,” and called it “the most convincing proof, the advocates of this system design the destruction of the State governments.”
Martin urged that “every State in the union, ought to reject such a system with indignation, since, if the general government should attempt to oppress and enslave them, they could not have any possible means of self-defense.”
He reiterated this point, lamenting that “in this system, we give the general government every provision it could wish for, and even invite it to subvert the liberties of the States and their citizens, since we give them the right to encrease and keep up a standing army as numerous as it would wish, and by placing the militia under its power, enable it to leave the militia totally unorganized, undisciplined, and even to disarm them.”
CONCLUSION
Martin’s speech before the Maryland legislature was widely circulated and highly influential in Anti-Federalist circles. Published in installments as General Information by the Baltimore Maryland Gazette between Dec. 28, 1787, and Feb. 8, 1788, it was reprinted in newspapers across Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. It was later published in pamphlet form on April 12, 1788, further expanding its reach.
As the ratification debates progressed, Martin’s essays became an essential resource for Anti-Federalists alarmed by the consolidation and centralization of power in a unified national government. While his speech was long and sometimes meandering, several key themes emerge.
At the heart of his objections was the overwhelming power granted to the federal government at the expense of state sovereignty. He warned that the proposed Constitution would lead to the annihilation of state authority, the rise of aristocracy, and the erosion of individual rights.
Martin argued that these outcomes were no accident. Instead, he believed the centralization and nationalization of power were deliberate features of the proposed system, intentionally designed to concentrate authority in the hands of a few. For Martin, this was not just a theoretical flaw but a direct threat to the balance of power that safeguarded liberty.
By exposing what he saw as a calculated effort to undermine state sovereignty, Martin’s essays became invaluable to Anti-Federalists challenging the unchecked growth of federal power.
However, Martin’s critiques extended far beyond state sovereignty. In two upcoming articles, we’ll delve deeper into his warnings about judicial overreach, the flaws in the impeachment process, compromises on slavery, and the lack of explicit protections for individual rights.
We’ll also explore his impassioned critiques of the federal government’s sweeping taxation powers, which he believed would drain resources from the states and individuals, paving the way for economic dependence and oppression.
More/Source: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2025/01/16/luther-martins-warning-the-constitution-as-a-threat-to-state-sovereignty/