Remembering the Anti-Federalists Rightly

[Chris]

Remembering the Anti-Federalists Rightly is a review of 's .

I post this for historical revision sometimes replaces myth with fact. For instance, that the Constitution was counter-revolutionary led by federalist conservatives when in fact the anti-federalist resisters and reactionaries were the conservatives.

Again, stick to the topic, contribute to it, don't troll off it.

For most of American history, Anti-Federalists, those opponents of the Constitution, played the role of the loser. The attention received from scholars castigated them as “men of little faith,” arch-conservatives troubled by the rising democratic tide of American politics. Among the only credit they received came from their calls for a bill of rights. Beginning in the late 1970s, Anti-Federalist fortunes start to shift. The first glimpse of this change came with Herbert Storing’s collection of Anti-Federalist writings. Storing’s slim, but compelling, essay opening the collection, What the Anti-Federalist Were For, revealed how their opposition to the Constitution stemmed from serious philosophical concerns and differences with their Federalist counterparts, and not just obstructionism or pro-slavery partisanship. Saul Cornell’s The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in American History (1999) took Storing’s findings a step further by exploring the social background of Anti-Federalists, and, more importantly, tying their political thought and opposition to the American tradition of resisting centralized authority. Finally, in 2011, Pauline Maier’s Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution placed the Anti-Federalists (a term she avoids using) at the center of her story. For Maier the Federalists secured victory in the ratification conventions through political maneuvering rather than through the inherent force of their arguments. This made Anti-Federalists and their arguments once again relevant for scholars as anti-Federalist criticisms were not addressed forthrightly in the debates and thus not really vanquished.

Despite these shifting fortunes, there remained no single, comprehensive treatment of Anti-Federalists’ political thought. Michael J. Faber and his An Anti-Federalist Constitution: The Development of Dissent in the Ratification Debates has changed that. Building on the works of Storing, Cornell, Maier, as well as his earlier work on the Federalists, Faber argues that a combination of disorganization and tactical missteps forced the Anti-Federalists to transform their political thought from one aimed at broad opposition to working to secure changes to the Constitution....

[Newpublius]

Remembering the Anti-Federalists Rightly is a review of 's .

I post this for historical revision sometimes replaces myth with fact. For instance, that the Constitution was counter-revolutionary led by federalist conservatives when in fact the anti-federalist resisters and reactionaries were the conservatives.

Again, stick to the topic, contribute to it, don't troll off it.

Well, here's your history in a nutshell. The main objection of the Anti-Federalists is that they were concerned that the Constitution was written to vest too much authority in the federal government. They looked at phrases like the General Welfare Clause and objected that it wouldn't actually be a limited government of enumerated powers, but rather a general government that could legislate on any topic.

The Federalists absolutely assured them that they were just being silly.

"In a more remote stage, the imports may consist in a considerable part of raw materials, which will be wrought into articles for exportation, and will, therefore, require rather the encouragement of bounties, than to be loaded with discouraging duties. A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.
''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars." -- Federalist 41

Well...."Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare.' Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65 , 56 S. Ct. 312, 319, 102 A.L.R. 914. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents." - Helvering v Davis

I guess the Anti-Federalists were correct.

[Chris]

Leaving out the phrase "expressly delegated" left open broad interpretations of implied powers.

[Newpublius]

Leaving out the phrase "expressly delegated" left open broad interpretations of implied powers.

Of course this is more about misconstruing the express delegation itself.....

[jet57]

Remembering the Anti-Federalists Rightly is a review of 's .

I post this for historical revision sometimes replaces myth with fact. For instance, that the Constitution was counter-revolutionary led by federalist conservatives when in fact the anti-federalist resisters and reactionaries were the conservatives.

Again, stick to the topic, contribute to it, don't troll off it.

You realize that the anti-federalists sowed the seeds of the confederacy and such confederacy is represented in today's Republican right-wing.

[MisterVeritis]

You realize that the anti-federalists sowed the seeds of the confederacy and such confederacy is represented in today's Republican right-wing.

This is kook stuff.

[Chris]

You realize that the anti-federalists sowed the seeds of the confederacy and such confederacy is represented in today's Republican right-wing.

Your history is whacky.

First of all Antifederalists were Northerners and Southerners: "Ranging from political elites like JAMES WINTHROP in Massachusetts to MELANCTON SMITH of New York and Patrick Henry and George Mason of Virginia, these Antifederalist were joined by a large number of ordinary Americans particularly yeomen farmers who predominated in rural America. The one overriding social characteristic of the Antifederalists as a group was their strength in newer settled western regions of the country." @ https://www.ushistory.org/us/16b.asp

And here's a connection to the Civil War: "North Carolina was strongly Anti-Federalist. Most citizens were small farmers who, while self-reliant and independent, were also by and large provincial and uneducated. They were concerned with their families, crops, and local matters; they gave little thought to the other states or foreign countries; and they were content with the weak government of the Confederation. The state's Anti-Federalist leaders included Willie Jones, David Caldwell, Lemuel Burkitt, Thomas Person, Samuel Spencer, and Timothy Bloodworth." @ https://www.ncpedia.org/anti-federalists

But get this: Vitoria Bynum, in The Free State of Jones, traces the roots of Jones County residents, including Newton Knight, to North Carolina. "I’m here in Jones County, Mississippi, to breathe in the historical vapors left by Newton Knight, a poor white farmer who led an extraordinary rebellion during the Civil War. With a company of like-minded white men in southeast Mississippi, he did what many Southerners now regard as unthinkable. He waged guerrilla war against the Confederacy and declared loyalty to the Union." @ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...nes-180958111/

[jet57]

Your history is whacky.

First of all Antifederalists were Northerners and Southerners: "Ranging from political elites like JAMES WINTHROP in Massachusetts to MELANCTON SMITH of New York and Patrick Henry and George Mason of Virginia, these Antifederalist were joined by a large number of ordinary Americans particularly yeomen farmers who predominated in rural America. The one overriding social characteristic of the Antifederalists as a group was their strength in newer settled western regions of the country." @ https://www.ushistory.org/us/16b.asp

And here's a connection to the Civil War: "North Carolina was strongly Anti-Federalist. Most citizens were small farmers who, while self-reliant and independent, were also by and large provincial and uneducated. They were concerned with their families, crops, and local matters; they gave little thought to the other states or foreign countries; and they were content with the weak government of the Confederation. The state's Anti-Federalist leaders included Willie Jones, David Caldwell, Lemuel Burkitt, Thomas Person, Samuel Spencer, and Timothy Bloodworth." @ https://www.ncpedia.org/anti-federalists

But get this: Vitoria Bynum, in The Free State of Jones, traces the roots of Jones County residents, including Newton Knight, to North Carolina. "I’m here in Jones County, Mississippi, to breathe in the historical vapors left by Newton Knight, a poor white farmer who led an extraordinary rebellion during the Civil War. With a company of like-minded white men in southeast Mississippi, he did what many Southerners now regard as unthinkable. He waged guerrilla war against the Confederacy and declared loyalty to the Union." @ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...nes-180958111/

https://www.ck12.org/section/federal...arly-republic/

In 1787, the states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention, where they debated and wrote the new Constitution. Two camps developed—Federalists who favored a strong central government and Anti-Federalists, who favored a weak one. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, were strongest among Northerners, city dwellers, and merchants. The Anti-Federalists, including Thomas Jefferson, included more Southerners and farmers.

[Chris]

https://www.ck12.org/section/federal...arly-republic/




[/FONT][/COLOR]

Did you have a point?

[jet57]

Did you have a point?

So I guess you can't read?

The Anti-Federalists, including Thomas Jefferson, included more Southerners and farmers.

And the north had slave states as well. The anti federalist - (far right) - to this day - carry the confederate message.