Give the Anti-Federalists Their Due

Article V Blog ^ | February 12th 2018 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Jacquerie]

In something a flashback from the Eagle’s Super Bowl victory, riot and mayhem also welcomed the draft Constitution when it made the Philadelphia newspapers. Advocates of the new plan held a majority in the Pennsylvania legislature, then in the last days of its regular session, and they attempted to ram through a statute calling for a ratification convention. To prevent a quorum, some of the Constitution’s opponents, the Anti-Federalists, made themselves scarce. The Assembly sent the sergeant-at-arms to seize enough absent members to establish a quorum, and forcibly kept them on the floor of the chamber.

It is difficult today to comprehend the apprehension and enormity of the choices set before society in the 1776 – 1787 era.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the US did not have the attributes of nationhood. Among other features, nations have taxing powers, a common currency, and make commercial treaties. To correct these deficiencies and keep the Union, Federalists designed a less federal and more national government.

But, to many people in 1787, the shortcomings of the Articles did not justify the Constitution’s mixed democratic/federal structure. Both sides recognized the fundamental feature of the Constitution; it was a government derived from the people rather than one expressly in the hands of the people. The Constitution squinted toward an aristocracy of the nation’s natural aristocrats, a government manned by the leading men of society. It wasn’t as if the Federalists had lost faith in the people; they simply believed a government too close to the people led to ambitious demagogues and dangerous factions.

Is republican, liberty-preserving government possible across a large territory? Federalists thought it possible; Anti-Federalists were certain it wasn’t.

Anti-Federalists regarded the Constitution as a repudiation, if not betrayal, of the Revolution . . .

[Jacquerie]

Despite losing the immediate argument, Anti-Federalist influence did not end in 1788. Their criticism of the lack of a bill of Rights led to the adoption of the first ten amendments soon after the new Constitution went into effect, and their general opposition to centralized power passed from generation to generation down to the present time.

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw]

The Anti-Feds were interested in freedom, not empire. The facts are clear 240 years later. Every danger they warned of has happened.

[Hieronymus]

The influence, while continuing, has also been weakening, and is approaching the point that, within the next generation or two, it will merely be a quaint attachment to the way things once were.

[NonValueAdded]

I believe Commodore (then captain) John Barry and his sailors were enlisted in rounding up of the absent delegates. Just one more contribution to the founding of our nation by the Father of the US Navy.

[Jacquerie]

Thanks. I did not know that!! I’ve had “Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution” by McMaster on my bookshelf for some time, but have yet to read it.

[NonValueAdded]

See “John Barry, an American Hero in the Age of Sail,” chapter 16.

[Publius]

Although it’s blog post, I find it worthy of a Federalist/Anti-Federalist ping.

[greeneyes]

Thanks for the Ping. Bookmark for later.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping; post; thread. BUMP!

[zeugma]

The Anti-Feds were interested in freedom, not empire. The facts are clear 240 years later. Every danger they warned of has happened.

It's kind of interesting to me because both sides were right in some ways.

For instance, the Federalists warned that adding a list of rights specifically called out as being protected (i.e., the Bill of Rights) to the document would lead many to argue that only those rights were protected, and not others. I can't tell you how many times I've seen, on this very forum, people arguing against an inherent right to privacy, or the common law right to travel. It's obvious the Federalists were right in this case. However, the Anti-Federalists argued that if you didn't include them, then those rights would not be respected at all. I believe it is equally obvious to anyone that this is the case. We need merely look at the arguments against us exercising our 2nd Amendment rights that even having them listed isn't enough to prevent government from eviscerating them.

I can just imagine how little support there would be on Free Republic amongst alleged "conservatives" for a right to keep silent would be, or how much support among the ctrl-left you'd find for speech codes like they have in Canada and Britain.

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw]

I divide this way. Ten percent of the people who matter have a fairly good grasp of our relationship to the Constitution, common law, unalienable rights, etc. One percent of that ten percent comprehend fully what the Founding Fathers were proposing. Because of that, it fails.

[zeugma]

I divide this way. Ten percent of the people who matter have a fairly good grasp of our relationship to the Constitution, common law, unalienable rights, etc. One percent of that ten percent comprehend fully what the Founding Fathers were proposing. Because of that, it fails.

I'd agree with that.