Were
the Anti-Federalists Wrong?
Wayne D. Carlson
In the
great debates that occurred in each of the 13 Independent Republics,
to consider the momentous question of rejection or ratification of
the newly proposed Constitution in 1787, there were no small number
of great and learned men that vehemently opposed, and warned against, the adoption of that document. History remembers them as
the "Antifederalists".
In Virginia alone, no less than "the trumpet of the Revolution",
Patrick Henry stood opposed. George Mason, who is credited with
writing the Virginia Bill of Rights which became the model for the
Constitution's, joined him in opposition. It was Richard Henry Lee
that first presented to Congress, in June of 1776, the resolution
that the thirteen "United Colonies are, and of right ought to be,
free and independent States." He too, joined Henry and Mason in
principled objection to ratification of the Constitution, as
written. As editor Isaac Kramnick states in the introduction to The
Federalist Papers, "In state after state, often only a handful of
votes separated the pro-Constitution forces and the defeated
opponents of the Constitution. In light of the growing
centralization and tyranny of the Federal government today, perhaps
it is high time we considered some of the arguments of those like
Henry who said, "I smell a rat".
Professor Marshall L. DeRosa, in his 1991 "The Confederate
Constitution of 1861:An Inquiry into American Constitutionalism",
notes that the primary objection of those opposing this new
Constitution, lay in its ambiguity concerning the "locus", or place,
in which ultimate sovereignty resided. Sovereignty, of course,
denotes supreme political authority, which the Antifederalists were anxious to preserve to their States.
Under
the first Constitution called "The Articles of Confederation", there
was no question where sovereignty lay. Article II expressly
declared, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and
independence." John Adams would write, "No one thought of
consolidating this vast continent under one national government." Indeed, each State had separate cultural,
institutional, and religious traditions. Their unity had only been
limited to their common connection to Britain and their common
struggle to free themselves from her growing threats to their
liberties. These "rebel patriots" were united in the belief that
liberty could only flourish when government power was restrained.
Yet, by 1787, most agreed that the Articles of Confederation needed
revising so that the powers of the central government could be
enlarged to deal with problems that were not being addressed under
the current system.
 The
transfer of power from the States to the central government under
the proposed Constitution failed to clarify the question of whether
the States retained the reserved right to reclaim their sovereign
powers in the event the people felt it in their best interests to do
so. It was this ambiguity that prompted the Antifederalists to
insist upon the adoption of a "Bill of Rights". The 10th Amendment,
remember, declares that those powers not expressly delegated to the
central government, nor prohibited to the States, were reserved to
the States and the people. It seems pretty clear to me that this
should have settled the question forever. The centrists and ultra
Nationalists, however, chose to ignore this some 70 years later when
a new generation of "rebel patriots" arose to throw off the threats
to their rights and liberties. In failing, they nonetheless reminded
us that a question settled by violence resolves nothing.
In reading the words of the Antifederalists we see that they feared
that in seeking to correct the mistake of giving too much power to
the State governments, under the Articles of Confederation, the
"Federalists" were now making the same mistake by giving too much
power to the Federal government. I would argue that history shows
them justified in their fear. DeRosa noted that "The Antifederalists
were convinced that it had been demonstrated, historically and
theoretically, that free republican governments could extend over
only a relatively small territory with a homogenous population and
even among states this rule was evident, for the largest states were
the worst governed."
M.E. Bradford in "Founding Fathers" identified the pro-Constitution
(Federalist) forces as comprising four rather distinct groups. The
first group, tending to side with the Antifederalists, felt that
with the inclusion of a Bill of Rights there would be nothing to
fear from the new government. The second group was motivated by
fear. They were willing to trade their liberty for the promise of
"security" and "peace". Shay's Rebellion in 1786, in Massachusetts,
had stirred a fear of social unrest in many. A third group made up
of men of power and wealth saw the federal system as a means to
enrich themselves further by using the powers of government to
subsidize their business interests. They constituted the forerunners
of America's corporate welfare class. Finally, there were what
Bradford calls "the everlasting glory" men, who saw for America a
"manifest destiny" of commercial, financial, and military power.
These were the forerunners of our arrogant, imperialist, and
interventionist minions who now seek to extend their power globally.
Typical of the objections the Antifederalists posed would be the
following from the Pennsylvania delegation to their States'
ratification convention. "The powers vested in Congress by this
constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the
legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states,
and produce from their ruins one consolidated government, which from
the nature of things will be an iron-handed despotism." I leave it
to the careful student of history to render judgment upon the
accuracy of the Antifederalists fears. Do we even understand the
Federal System envisioned by the Founders? Can we distinguish
between the Republic Benjamin Franklin claimed we'd established, and
what we have become today?
John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, understood by many to be the
foremost political thinker and philosopher in American history,
clearly stated the question the Federalists were afraid to broach
and that we must continue to ask today. Calhoun said, "Stripped of
all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal
or a consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a
government resting ultimately on the solid basis of sovereignty of
the States or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of
government, as in all other unlimitedness, in which injustice, and
violence, and force must finally prevail."
Participation in and submission to the Constitution was premised on
the voluntary consent of the various States' that ratified it. The
founders promised us a government that would protect and preserve
the liberties of the people and the prerogatives of the States. If
it has now become the means in which they are now threatened, do we
not have the moral obligation to insist that it abide by the
conditions in the original compact? What remedy were the "rebel patriots" in 1776, and again in 1861, forced to adopt to preserve
liberty? Are we any different?
___________________
Wayne D. Carlson is is a physical education instructor, historian,
and member of the Virginia League of the South. Wayne is also a
freelance columnist and has written for several newspapers and well
known Internet websites such as The Serra Times and
DixieInternet.Com. Wayne lives with his lovely wife in Southwestern
Virginia.
This article was
original posted at: Were the Anti-Federalists Wrong?
|
