Um, exsqueeze me? You only demonstrate that the anti-Federalist papers *should* be required reading, because you're hugely ignorant of how our nation was formed.
If it weren't for the anti-Federalists, we would not have a Bill of Rights. No Second Amendment, no First Amendment, no Tenth Amendment...
The Constitution would be a list of broad powers granted to the federal government, with no explicit "hands off" areas spelling out what government may *not* do with respect to the rights of individuals.
And in fact, many of the anti-federalist papers read like a litany of modern conservative essays about how the Constitution has failed or been subverted for lack of proper safeguards in the original language, such as:
Anti-federalist #11: UNRESTRICTED POWER OVER COMMERCE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT (warnings about the expansion of federal power under the commerce clause)And so on.Anti-federalist #12: HOW WILL THE NEW GOVERNMENT RAISE MONEY? (warnings about the inability of the fedgov to raise sufficient funds via impost taxes, foreshadowing the problem of spiraling income taxes and other kinds of taxes)
Anti-federalist #17: FEDERALIST POWER WILL ULTIMATELY SUBVERT STATE AUTHORITY (title speaks for itself)
Anti-federalist #23: CERTAIN POWERS NECESSARY FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, CAN AND SHOULD BE LIMITED (more concerns about the loss of state control of local events, powers, and monies. Sample excerpt: "These powers taken in connection, amount to this: that the general government have unlimited authority and control over all the wealth and all the force of the union. The advocates for this scheme, would favor the world with a new discovery, if they would show, what kind of freedom or independency is left to the state governments, when they cannot command any part of the property or of the force of the country, but at the will ofthe Congress.")
Anti-federalist #26: THE USE OF COERCION BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT (foreshadowing the unrestrained abuses of the IRS. Excerpt: " The excise officers have power to enter your houses at all times, by night or day, and if you refuse them entrance, they can, under pretense of searching for exciseable goods, that the duty has not been paid on, break open your doors, chests, trunks, desks, boxes, and rummage your houses from bottom to top. ")
Anti-federalist #32: FEDERAL TAXATION AND THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED POWERS (warnings of the unrestricted ability of the fedgov to raise taxes without limit. Excerpt: "Second. We will next inquire into what is implied in the authority to pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry this power into execution. It is, perhaps, utterly impossible fully to define this power. The authority granted in the first clause can only be understood in its full extent, by descending to all the particular cases in which a revenue can be raised; the number and variety of these cases are so endless, and as it were infinite, that no man living has, as yet, been able to reckon them up.")
Anti-federalist #46: WHERE THEN IS THE RESTRAINT? (powers of Congress defined too broadly. Excerpt: "Under such a clause as this, can anything be said to be reserved and kept back from Congress? Can it be said that the Congress have no power but what is expressed? "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" - or, in other words, to make all such laws which the Congress shall think necessary and proper")
Anti-federalist #51: DO CHECKS AND BALANCES REALLY SECURE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE? (warnings about the corruption of Congress and the lack of sufficient controls on it)
Anti-federalist #78: THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (warnings on the lack of checks and balances on the Supreme Court. Excerpt: "The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control. The business of this paper will be to illustrate this, and to show the danger that will result from it. I question whether the world ever saw, in any period of it, a court of justice invested with such immense powers, and yet placed in a situation so little responsible.")
The anti-federalists foresaw and warned about almost every weakness and loophole in the US Constitution which today's conservatives bemoan. Far from being "irrelevant", history has shown them to have been right on the money on the issues of how certain parts of the US Constitution were not sufficiently protected against abuse, or openly invited abuse. Far from being the work of the "genius" of Hamilton et al, who trusted too much to the good will and wisdom (*cough*) of those in power, the US Constitution would have been a far better document had the concerns of the anti-federalists been heeded and addressed.
Even in their own time, however, they managed to win an important victory which has immeasurably improved the US Constitution -- imagine what our government would be like today without it:
Anti-federalist #84: ON THE LACK OF A BILL OF RIGHTS (Excerpt: "This principle, which seems so evidently founded in the reason and nature of things, is confirmed by universal experience. Those who have governed, have been found in all ages ever active to enlarge their powers and abridge the public liberty. This has induced the people in all countries, where any sense of freedom remained, to fix barriers against the encroachments of their rulers.")
The anti-federalists were not at all irrelevant to history. The Bill of Rights was very much their legacy. Madison and Hamilton (who were initially against a bill rights) were forced to promise such a document in order to win anti-federal support in the ratification battles and (later) to buy off continuing skeptics such as Henry.
How modest.
He, Madison and Jay all use Publicus for the FP. He was not trying to hide his identity and anyone who was interested knew who was writing them.
Really, how many cases can you document?
There is also the little issue of Hamilton fraudulently claiming credit for 63 numbers of the Federalist, some of them plainly written by Madison.
Patrick Henry was not a nationalist and did not want a government strong enough to create a more perfect union. After a great start he too wound up on History's Loser List.
I very much doubt Patrick is concerned with your opinion. What exactly does a "more perfect union" mean? For me a free society will suffice, others equate the ability to control and dominate others with "greatness".