10

The Anti-federalist Papers - incubator of the Bill of Rights (pdf download)

Posted by freedomforall 6 years ago to History
28 comments | Share | Flag

"The second meaning of “federal” had a particular American character. In the 1780s, those folks who wanted a firmer and more connected union became known as federal men. People like George Washington., Gouverneur Morris, James Madison., Alexander Hamilton., and James Wilson. were known as federal men who wanted a firmer federal, or even national, union. And those people like Patrick Henry., Richard Henry Lee., George Clinton., Melancton Smith., and Roger Sherman., who opposed or who raised doubts about the merits of a firmer and more energetic union acquired the name of antifederal men who opposed an inclination to strengthen the ties of Union with a focus on centralized direction."
"The Antifederalists would have preferred to be known as democratic republicans or federal republicans, but they acquired the name antifederal, or Anti-federal, or Antifederal as a result of the particular events of American history. If we turn to principles to define what they stood for, the content of their position was what was known in history as an attachment to federal principles: a commitment to local government and limited general government, frequent elections and rotation in office, and to writing things down because our liberties are safer as a result."


All Comments

  • Posted by 5 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The south tried to resolve the issue peacefully and Lincoln, who wanted war, refused to even see their representatives. Lincoln then acted to lure the south into action so you would believe his lying propaganda. Read The Real Lincoln, by Thomas DiLorenzo, for the true history of the actions that led to the war, instead of the propaganda rubbish that you were taught in government schools and is still spouted by the Lincoln historian cult.
    Here is a transcript of an interview with DiLorenzo: https://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13521/
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, that is what happens when you commit treason against your country and go to war against it. I think those Confederates got off easy as it was.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They infringe on natural rights, but unfortunately the Federal Constitution does not specifically provide against that. If only the voters in those states would stop being idiots and vote against those things. But that is why we have to promote Objectivism. It's going to be a long, hard job.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The free market is exactly what I support. But I am in favor of certain Supreme Court decisions of the "60's, including Brown vs. Board of Education, and the decision against state-enforced school prayer.--Of course, there are a lot of matters which government per se should stay out of, whether Federal, state, or local.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Right. The action of any state that infringes on our natural or civil rights can be called to account both in state and federal courts. Unfortunately socially destructive acts, such as excessive taxation do not infringe on citizens' rights, and may be oppressive, but have to be confronted in the offending state.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Consenting to the federal government growing to enslave people in every state is not a solution to injustice. We are currently experiencing the resulting loss of freedom of such policies that you are apparently supporting in your posts. The free market approach is much superior and that is what I am supporting.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.(italics added). So the states are referred to as separate from the people, not entitled to just run roughshod over the rights of their people.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Trivial? Maybe. But you shouldn't have to. The rights of man are natural. The state government has no right to violate them. (Of course, neither does the Federal government).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think the passage of the 14th amendment was while the southern states had no freely elected representatives in con-gress and the ratification in southern states was also done only with state legislatures as approved by the conquerors to assure rubber stamps. Lincoln and the GOP showed the Soviets how to run "elections" and how to treat designated "enemies" of the current administration.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Remember, the tenth amendment does not allow states to usurp the Federal powers, only to exercise authority not identified as Federal in the Constitution. Jim Crow laws were a violation of the fourteenth amendment, so your example doesn't hold. Where it becomes an issue, e.g. neglected infrastructure, the state voters have to hold their state government accountable, and elect new representatives if the incumbents don't respond. With the abusive California government, people in the minority (Republicans) have no choice but to leave the state when high taxes and restrictive construction laws make it impossible for anyone not earning seven figures to own a home.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You have grown up under the federal meddling state. Freedom isn't free. If you want to keep it sometimes you must sacrifice convenience in the short term. Very few accept that responsibility today. The founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Many lost their lives for freedom. Moving to another place is trivial in comparison. Human culture improves through peaceful competition.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Agreed. I think the one thing the Federalists got right was that what they were calling for was more of a separation of duties - with the Federal government taking the lead in some things (where it made since and involved coordination among the States) but leaving the majority of decisions to the States. Unfortunately, the power-hungry have used erroneous interpretation of many Constitutional Clauses to pervert this separation of jurisdiction and move power away from the States to the Federal Government. This has only been made worse with the Seventeenth Amendment.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Never happen. The feds won't give up any power voluntarily and they would control any such convention, imo.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am cautiously open to some sort of constitutional convention with a goal of decreasing the power of the federal government.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    When a state is violating the rights of its citizens (e.g., with Jim Crow laws), the victims should not have to leave the state in order the have them respected. "The phrase 'states' rights" is a contradiction in terms; there can be no such thing as the right of some men to violate the rights of others." (Ayn Rand).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, almost exactly as they predicted. Their actions in creating the Bill of Rights and other changes to the constitution helped to slow the process.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "the new Constitution had the POTENTIALITY to generate a consolidated government over a large territory in which one of the branches of government [...]would come to dominate. They warned that the partly national and partly federal Constitution would veer naturally in the direction of wholly national"
    Is this essentially what happened? Their fears came true.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    People are free to leave that jurisdiction for another competing jurisdiction. Then the jurisdiction will suffer failure after failure and no federal military force is needed to intervene. But that is not what gives more power to the federal government; the feds always want to meddle where they are not needed because it gives them more power over more people and gradually makes the people dependent (and enslaved.)
    Americans may have been better off under the Articles of Confederation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    On the other hand, I am not for the notion of unlimited "states' rights" to violate the rights of man, as was done in the case of slavery and Jim Crow.--
    Yes procedurally, it has to be a Federation of states, but if a state insists on violating its citizens' rights, there has to be some sort of appeal.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ splumb 5 years, 12 months ago
    One of my favorite Antifederalists is Luther Martin of Maryland. He may have been a heavy drinker, but he had a brilliant mind, and all of his dire predictions about a strong federal system of government have come to pass.
    He was appalled when he arrived at the Constitutional Convention, thinking (like a lot of members) that it was just to tighten up the Articles of Confederation, only to discover that he would be locked inside a secret event, designed to create an all-powerful federal system.
    They were ordered not to reveal anything to the outside world, but he went straight home and shouted it from the rooftops, bless him.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well stated and detailed! I have read the Anti-Federalist Papers (as well as the Federalist Papers) and they make a variety of cogent points. And it was not so much that they were against a well-run Federal/National Government, but as you stated they were wary of that power completely subsuming the States. They were prescient on that last one because the authority of the individual States has significantly waned in the past 100 years...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by JuliBMe 5 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    ALL of those men were definitely VERY stable geniuses! :-)

    As we now know, almost 250 years later, they were correct in their fears. Human nature, easily leaning towards evil, is what it is and will never be changed. The stop gaps for corruption need to be updated and renewed. I believe Trump is in the process of doing just that. He MUST have the full 8 years.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 6 years ago
    It is very interesting how much foresight our forefathers had. Thanks for sharing this.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo