Excessive power?
Do you mean like Fugitive Slave laws, forced on Northern states which had already abolished slavery?
No, of course you don't.
Those are exactly the kind of constitutional Federal powers Democrats loved and supported!
ek_hornbeck: "In other words, they did so for exactly the opposite reasons.
You can agree or disagree with Federalism, but isn't it completely dishonest of you to say that today's Democrats are 'the same' as those of the 19th Century when today's oppose the Constitution because it gives the Federal Government insufficient power while those of 200 years ago thought it gave the Federal GOvernment excessive power?"
No, not the opposite reasons, the same reasons.
From Day One of our free republic Democrats have always supported more Federal power in support of their institutions, such as slavery then or "welfare" today.
They only care to limit Federal powers in areas (i.e., sanctuary cities) where it would be adverse to their political base.
How can that be anything but totally obvious??
ek_hornbeck: "I'm guessing that you understand this, but are just engaging in dishonest rhetoric to support your own position."
No, I'm being totally honest and you are ignoring simple facts which don't fit your own misleading narrative.
You acknowledged that the Confederacy preferred the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution. The principal difference between the former and the latter is that the Constitution gave more (albeit still limited) power to the Federal government than under the Articles. One doesn’t have to be a neo-Confederate to see that the antebellum South’s preference for the Articles of Confederation makes the claim that the Confederacy was the precursor of 21st century, Obama/Clinton style Democrats absolutely absurd, unless you think that Obama would have supported the Articles of Confederation as a model for the US government.