Replies

What the antifederalists produced was an accurate critique of the national system created by the Constitution, and some good predictions of the abuses that would follow.

If their criticisms had been accurate they would have continued to point them out after the Constitution was ratified. They weren't and they didn't. Once it was in operation they realized that their criticisms were wrong. They shut up. They wanted everyone to forget they had been so wrong. I can't say I blame them. Who wants to admit they were that wrong?

Rejection of the Constitution would not have returned them to a state of nature. It would have been just another day under the Articles of Confederation.

True. And the rejection of the Constitution would have started the clock ticking on when the several states would have sent notice to the moribund central government that they were seceding. Six or less, maybe a lot less. They already had experience with breaking ties with unsatisfactory governments that wouldn't reform themselves, they got rid of one twelve years earlier. Unlike that prior one, which had a serious army, this one was so weak it couldn't even have put up a fight.

True. And the rejection of the Constitution would have started the clock ticking on when the several states would have sent notice to the moribund central government that they were seceding.

Seceding? From a perpetual Union? Surely you jest!!

Fact is that they ALL did seced from the "perpetual union" formed under the Articles of Confederation and formed a NEW government under the Constitution. How did they legally do that?

YOu seem to make a habit of being wrong.

Bzzzzt. Wrong. After it was ratified, and the first congress was in session, they added 10 amendments to the Constitution to attempt to improve some of its obvious deficiencies. That's hardly shutting up.

As for who turned out to be wrong, history has shown who was right and who was wrong. Do we have a judiciary that is virtually unchecked and expands federal power? Do we have a congress that deems almost anything within the scope of its "necessary and proper" powers? Do we have states that have been neutered to the point of being mere agents or depaertments of the national government? These were the predictions of the antifederalists.

Or, on the other hand, do we have robust states and a federal government of "few and defined" powers." That was the federalist argument.

Obviously, the question answers itself.

Once the Constitution was ratified, the anti-Federalists did more than get the Bill of Rights into the Constitution, they formed the basis of the Jeffersonian impulse in American politics.

Before the Civil War dealt a death blow to Jacksonian federalism, the anti-Federalists formed the base of Jefferson's Republican Party and Jackson's Democratic Party. After the Civil War, the Jeffersonian impulse formed the basis of the Progressive Movement.

Following World War II, Goldwater brought the heirs of the anti-Federalists and Jeffersonians into the modern Republican Party, and Reagan brought them to power -- for a while. Today the heirs of John DeWitt and Jefferson reside in the Tea Party movement.

The anti-Federalists are still among us, but in a different form.