Welcome to Making a Great America, where we explore the founding debates that shaped our nation. I'm your host, Charlie Jett, coming to you from our studio in beautiful downtown Chicago. Today we examine one of the most powerful anti-federalist papers written during the ratification debates, Sentinel One, published on October 5th, 1787 by Sentinel, later revealed to be Samuel Bryan of Philadelphia. Just weeks after the Constitutional Convention adjourned, Bryan launched a devastating critique of the proposed Constitution, warning that it would create a permanent aristocracy and destroy the liberties Americans had just fought a revolution to secure. This essay became one of the most widely read anti-federalist papers, reprinted all across the young nation. So let's explore Sentinel's fierce defense of liberty and his dire warnings about consolidated power. On October 5th, 1787, barely three weeks after the Constitutional Convention completed its work, a powerful essay appeared in Philadelphia's Independent Gazetteer. The author signed himself simply Sentinel, a watchman standing guard over American liberty. His opening words struck directly at the heart of Pennsylvania's freemen. He wrote, and I quote, Permit one of yourselves to put you in mind of certain liberties and privileges secured to you by the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and to beg your serious attention to his uninterested opinion upon the plan of federal government submitted to your consideration. And before you surrender these great and valuable privileges up forever. Sentinel began by reminding Pennsylvanians what they already possessed under their state constitution. Their current government secured them against unreasonable searches and seizures. It guaranteed trial by jury in civil cases. Most importantly, it declared that the people have a right of freedom of speech and of writing and publishing their sentiments. Therefore, the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained. Then Sentinel posed the devastating question how long would these rights survive under the proposed constitution? He wrote, and I quote, The Constitution of Pennsylvania is yet in existence, as yet you have the right to freedom of speech and of publishing your sentiments. How long these rights will appear to you, you yourselves are called upon to say, whether your houses shall continue to be your castles, whether your papers, your persons, and your property are to be held sacred and free from general warrants, you are now to determine. Whether the trial by jury is to continue as your birthright, the free men of Pennsylvania, nay, of all America, are now called upon to declare. Sentinel acknowledged the audacity of his critique, but defended his right to speak freely. He wrote, and I quote, If I use my pen with the boldness of a free man, it is because I know that the liberty of the press yet remains unviolated, and juries yet are the judges. He then attacked the atmosphere of hasty enthusiasm surrounding the Constitution's release. Philadelphia's citizens had rushed to approve it before they could possibly have understood its implications. Sentinel demanded careful deliberation and wrote, Instead of that frenzy of enthusiasm that has actuated the citizens of Philadelphia in their approbation of the proposed plan, before it was possible that it could be the result of rational investigation into its principles, it ought to be dispassionately and deliberately examined, and its own intrinsic merit the only criterion of your patronage. The stakes he warned could not be higher. He wrote, All the blessings of liberty and the dearest privileges of free men are now at stake and dependent on your present conduct. Sentinel recognized that most people lacked the expertise to judge such complex matters of governance, making them vulnerable to manipulation by those with greater knowledge and prestige. He warned that even men of great integrity could become, as he said, instruments of despotism in the hands of the artful and designing. The love of power, Sentinel observed, tends to increase with ability and talent. He then launched into his philosophical critique, targeting the theory of balanced government that had influenced the convention's work. John Adams had theorized that good government required three balancing powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, whose competing interests would protect liberty. Sentinel rejected this entirely. Such a system, he argued, assumed that administrators would always act from views of private interest and ambition to the prejudice of the public good. But if this were true, how could jarring competing interests ever produce the common good? He wrote, and I quote, therefore, as different orders in government will not produce the good of the whole, we must recur to other principles. What principles? Sentinel had a clear answer. He wrote, I believe it will be found that the form of government which holds those entrusted with power in the greatest responsibility to their constituents, the best calculated for free men. A free government, Sentinel insisted, required virtue and relative equality among the people. He wrote, a republican or free government can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous and where property is pretty equally divided. In such a government, the people are the sovereign, and their sense or opinion is the criterion of every public measure. The best way to ensure accountability was through simplicity. If you create a complex government with multiple branches, the people become confused about who is to blame for abuses. Some will fault the Senate, others the House, still others the President. He writes, the interposition of the people may be rendered imperfect or perhaps wholly abortive. But if you vest legislative power in a single body elected for short terms with mandatory rotation, you will create the most perfect responsibility. For then, whenever the people feel a grievance, they cannot mistake the authors, and will apply the remedy with certainty and effect, discarding them at the next election. Having established his principles, Sentinel turned to examining the proposed Constitution itself. His verdict was damning. I trust shall make it appear to the meanest capacity that it has none of the essential requisites of a free government, that it is neither founded on those balancing restraining powers recommended by Mr. Adams and attempted in the British Constitution, or possessed of that responsibility to its constituents, which, in my opinion, is the only effectual security for the liberties and happiness of the people. But on the contrary, that it is the most daring attempt to establish a despotic aristocracy among freemen that the world has ever witnessed. Sentinel's analysis of congressional powers was devastating. The Constitution granted Congress authority to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. He asked, Now what can be more comprehensive than those words? Not only would Congress control all external revenue sources and command a standing army, that grand engine of oppression, but it would also possess every species of internal taxation. Whatever taxes Congress deemed necessary for the general welfare could be imposed, and the collection would be enforced by the standing army, however grievous or improper they may be. The judicial power was equally alarming. Federal courts would have jurisdiction over an enormous range of cases. Sentinel predicted that the state judiciaries would be wholly superseded, for in contests about jurisdiction, the federal court, as the most powerful, would ever prevail. The Supremacy Clause sealed the deal. Article IV declared that the Constitution and Federal Laws shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. Sentinels saw clearly where this would lead. By these sections, the all-prevailing power of taxation and such extensive legislative and judicial powers are vested in the general government as must in their operation necessarily absorb the state legislatures and judiciaries. The framers had left the form of state government in place merely as a blind, a deception to prevent alarming the people about the true consolidation that was occurring. If the states were to be melted down into one empire, Sentinel asked whether such an extensive territory could actually be governed on democratic principles. He invoked Montescu, the greatest writers who taught that a very extensive country cannot be governed on democratical principles or any other plan than a confederation of a number of small republics, possessing all the powers of internal government, but united in their management of their foreign and general concerns. Anything short of despotism, Central argued, could not bind so great a country under one government, and that whatever plan you might, at the first setting out, establish, it would issue in a despotism. Even if such a government could maintain freedom, it would be incompetent to address local concerns. One distant government couldn't possibly understand the varied needs of different regions, and the people in remote areas were loudly complaining of the inconveniences and disadvantages they are subjected to on this account. Examining the Constitution's structure, Sentinel found the House of Representatives fundamentally inadequate. Only one representative per 30,000 inhabitants appears to be too few, either to communicate the requisite information of the wants, local circumstances, and sentiments of so extensive an empire, or to prevent corruption and undue influence. Two-year terms were too long to preserve accountability, and Congress's control over the election procedures meant it could manipulate the selection process. The Senate was even worse. The great efficient body in this plan of government is constituted on the most unequal principles. Small states had equal weight with large ones. Senators served six-year terms with no mandatory rotation, meaning they may be continued for life, which from their extensive means of influence would follow of course. The president would become either the head of the aristoctic in the Senate, or its minion. With his pardon power, he might screen from punishment the most treasonable attempt on liberties of the people when instigated by the Senate. Sentinel's conclusion about the government structure was clear. He wrote, and I quote, From this investigation into the organization of this government, it appears that it is devoid of all responsibility or accountability to the great body of the people, and that so far from being a regular balanced government, it would be in practice a permanent aristocracy. Then came perhaps his most powerful charge. The framers, actuated by the true spirit of such a government, which ever abominates and suppresses all free inquiry and discussion, have made no provision for the liberty of the press, that grand palladium of freedom and scourge of the tyrants, but observed a total silence on that head. Sentinel observed that in Turkey, if freedom of the press could be established, despotism would fly before it. Moreover, there is no declaration of personal rights, premised in most free constitutions, and that trial by jury in civil cases is taken away. The provision for appellate jurisdiction over both law and fact meant jury trials would be dismissed in civil cases, even though criminal jury trials were explicitly protected. But defenders of the Constitution claimed that there was no choice ratify immediately or face absolute ruin. Sentinel rejected this fear mongering outright. My fellow citizens, things are not at that crisis. It is the argument of tyrants. Europe's distracted state secured America from foreign threat. Domestic problems didn't warn rushing into this form of government without it as a safe and proper one. For remember, of all possible evils, that of despotism is the worst and the most to be dreaded. Rather than rushing, America should take time for mature deliberations. If objections prove valid, a future general convention being in possession of the objections will be the better enabled to plan a suitable government. Sentinel closed with the lines from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, challenging his readers to consider whether they would accept bondage or defend their country and liberty. Now here are the key takeaways. First, no Bill of Rights. Sentinel's most powerful argument was that the Constitution lacked explicit protections for freedom of speech, press, religion, trial by jury, and security against unreasonable searches. All rights Pennsylvania's Constitution already guaranteed. Second, permanent aristocracy warning. He predicted that the Constitution would create not a balanced republic, but a permanent ruling class, accountable to no one, with senators serving indefinitely and representatives too few and too distant to truly represent the people. Third, consolidation, not federation. Sentinel argued the Constitution would melt down the states into one empire, absorbing state governments through the Supremacy Clause and Federal Judicial Power, leaving state governments as mere facades. Fourth, the rejection of balanced government theory. Unlike the Federalists who believed competing powers would protect liberty, Sentinel insisted that only direct accountability to the people through simple government structures could preserve freedom. Fifth, size matters for republics. Following Montesquieu, he argued that republics must remain small to preserve liberty. A large continental empire could only be governed through despotism, not democratic principles. Lastly, and sixth, false crisis, real danger. Sentinel rejected Federalist claims of imminent crisis, calling it the argument of tyrants, and warned that rushing into an unsafe government was far more dangerous than taking time for deliberation and revision. Well, in conclusion, Sentinel I stands as one of the most systematic and powerful critiques of the Constitution produced during the ratification debates. Writing just weeks after the convention adjourned, Samuel Bryan identified fundamental problems that would echo throughout American history. The tension between federal and state power, the difficulty of maintaining accountability in a large republic, the danger of consolidated authority, and above all, the necessity of explicit protections for individual rights. While Bryan lost the ratification battle, Pennsylvania ratified the Constitution on December 12, 1787, his arguments proved prophetic. The public outcry over the missing Bill of Rights, amplified by Sentinel and other anti-federalists, forced the first Congress to add the first Ten Amendments. Sentinel's warning that the Constitution would absorb state governments has been validated by two centuries of expanding federal power. His prediction of an aristocratic ruling class disconnected from ordinary citizens resonates today in debates about political elites and popular sovereignty. Perhaps most importantly, sentinels insistent that free people have the right to deliberate carefully before surrendering their liberties remains a timeless principle. His challenge to his fellow citizens still echoes.