Asher Sisneros

Asher K. Sisneros

Dr. Gary North

American Literature

December 3, 2024

Note: This essay is my hypothetical speech if I were an Anti-Federalist delegate opposing the Constitution at Virginia’s ratification convention.  

Over the past decade, we have fought a grueling conflict to liberate ourselves from the unlawful rule of Parliament and the hubris of the King. The people made immense sacrifices to attain their liberty, and many lives were tragically lost. Yet now that the conflict is over and the battles have stopped, we must remember why we fought. There are rumors spreading among the Federalists and propaganda corrupting the minds of our state legislature that America may rise to international prowess and replace Britain as an empire the whole world envies. But these rumors and ambitions must stop immediately, for they ignore the reason we fought this war. We did not fight for the sake of power. We fought for the sake of liberty. But liberty will not remain loyal to this continent if we become adulterated by the ambition of a few. 

Counterintuitively, it is the self-proclaimed Federalists who most actively resist a federal (representative), decentralized government and strive to build an empire that dominates this entire continent. Their own words speak for themselves. As Thomas Paine said, “America need never be ashamed to tell of her birth, nor relate the stages by which she rose to empire.”¹ And echoing that sentiment, Alexander Hamilton said, “Under a vigorous national government, the natural strength and resources of the country, directed to a common interest, would baffle all the combinations of European jealousy to restrain our growth” and America “might make herself the admiration and envy of the world.”² Clearly, he and I have different ambitions. 

We must remember that liberty and imperialism cannot coexist within this house we strive to build. As our Savior Jesus Christ said, “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to one and despise the other” (Matthew 6:24). Although He spoke of the distinction between temporal and eternal ambitions—between the love of money and the love of heaven—His words are relevant to the debate at hand. What we worship will impact the outcome of our goals. In many respects, our underlying goals transcend our actions. If our goals are virtuous, our actions will reflect that in the long run, even if we stumble temporarily. But if our underlying goals are corrupt, taking virtuous actions will prove to be fruitless in the end. For example, if a virtuous man who strives to serve other people makes a mistake and sins, as all men do, we would lament that mistake and consider it an abnormality. However, if another man has dedicated his life to evil purposes, despite any good actions he might accidentally take in the process, his underlying goal is still perverted. Moreover, most good deeds flow from good motives; and evil deeds flow from evil motives. Thus it is our nation’s goal that we must focus on. 

As a nation, we stand at a crossroads. This is the defining moment where the fate of this country is at stake. We must choose what our motivation is and what this nation will chiefly stand for. We must choose which master we’ll serve. Patriotism and nationalism are fine byproducts, but at what cost do we make them our underlying goal? If greatness on the world stage becomes our goal, we will inadvertently sell liberty. Perhaps we will gain international prowess as Hamilton hopes for, but what if the principles of liberty that inspired this conflict in the first place become forgotten and get lost in the process of striving for greatness? If that happens, we fought in vain, all because of the ambition of a few. But if, on the other hand, our goal is to preserve liberty, industrious minds will flock to America, and we will become a breeding ground for innovation and bring the world’s commerce to our doorsteps. In other words, we may very well gain commercial greatness as long as our goal is to preserve liberty. However, if our goal is imperialism, we will lose liberty in the process. Think of all the nations before us that trampled on the rights of their people in the name of security, military strength, and imperialism. Those nations are plentiful. Just think of ancient Athens. With a petition of 6,000 signatures, a person could be ostracized without a trial for being an “enemy of the people.” Yet this deplorable violation of basic human rights was done in the name of public safety, national unity, and State strength. If our chief goal is the domination of North America or naval strength in the Atlantic Ocean, it is conceivable that we may sell away our peoples’ liberties for the sake of international strength. And in doing so, everything we fought for during this revolution would have been in vain. 

It is vital for us to purge any ambitions of becoming an empire. We will lose too much to make it worth it. Besides, any ambitions for personal greatness or national strength are rooted in pride. Pride is the only reason any person would wish to be greater than his neighbor or any nation would wish to have the strongest navy. This is especially true for America, which stands across an ocean from all the European powers. France, Spain, and Great Britain are constantly at war with each other. They are too preoccupied to fight us. As a nation, we do not need to fear an invasion from one of these countries, especially when we do not strive for imperialism. And if land forces were mobilized against us, we’d have the backyard advantage, as our militias proved during the revolution. Slowly but surely, our militias’ guerilla warfare tactics would drain any invader’s resources and bankrupt them. Moreover, there would be no advantage for them to invade us unless we strove to build an empire and topple them. In that case, they would grow envious and mobilize their forces against us. But if we adopt a policy of peace and neutrality towards Europe, we have nothing to fear. More fundamentally, though, we must remember that “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). To pridefully lust for power, we will inevitably invite God’s curses upon this land, and His judgment would be justified. At all costs, we cannot become drunk on the Luciferian lies that we can “become like God” (Genesis 3:5) and determine our own fate, copying the Devil in his ambition to “ascend above the heights of the clouds” (Isaiah 14:4).  

I sincerely hope that we agree on this and all share a universal disdain for imperial ambitions, recognizing it as a temptation from Satan. If we agree on this, opposition to this newly proposed constitution should be unanimous. The Federalists have based their arguments for the Constitution on the impossibility of building an empire without it. In short, Hamilton and Madison have argued in their “Federalist Papers” that without ratification of the Constitution, America cannot rise to become an empire. That reason alone is justification to unanimously reject the Constitution. If it gives presidents and Congress the power to pursue evil ambitions, it is our duty to reject it unequivocally. Although President Washington has the overwhelming support of the people as a virtuous man, a power-hungry politician may one day fill his office. In fact, it is highly probable. Even if the majority of Congress and our current president were to oppose American imperialism, ratifying the Constitution would give men with less virtuous ambitions in the future the power to drag America into an irreversible destiny towards authoritarian despotism; it would give them the power to build an empire. But as Hamilton has pointed out, if we reject this Constitution today, they cannot build an empire. For the sake of preventing the rise of imperialism, the Constitution must be rejected.

1. Thomas Paine, “American Crisis,” web. https://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com/members/images/AmericanCrisis.pdf, pg. 49 ↩︎
2. Alexander Hamilton, “Federalist No. 11,” The Complete Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing, 2014), pg. 60 ↩︎