This is a paper my oldest son and I wrote on the Constitution and Anti-Federalists a number of years ago that lays out some of the rationale I have for a Convention of States. My campaign positions also go more in-depth for my positions on protecting West Virginian and American liberties.
Prophesying-Tyranny-The-Anti-Federalists-and-and-the-Fate-of-Our-WorldHere is the first section of our paper:
Prophesying Tyranny: The Anti-Federalists and the Fate of Our World
By William Ridenour & William Ridenour, II
“The misnamed Anti-Federalists, during the debates preceding the ratification of the Constitution, predicted the descent of our society into despotism and tyranny. They foresaw a political ‘elite’ forming an oligarchy, an all-powerful judiciary, an authoritarian bureaucracy, and a dictator as president. While the Anti-Federalists achieved significant effects, their arguments and warnings about the catastrophic consequences the Constitution would create were, and largely are, ignored.
The Anti-Federalists were a far more amorphous lot of Founding Fathers than the Federalist1 cabal of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, who dominated the Federalist effort. The Anti-Federalists organized no similar effort to counter the draft Constitution and the coordinated Federalist campaign2. Erroneously disparaged as wealthy landowners promoting their own interests3, these were, in fact, among the most brilliant of the Founding Fathers. Not the rag-tag group of nay-sayers, as they are often portrayed, these included the likes of Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, James Monroe, George Clinton, and James Winthrop. Like their Federalist opposites, some wrote in alias, such as Brutus4 and Federal Farmer5, but many, including Patrick Henry and Melancton Smith, wrote openly and were far less secretive than their opponents.
While the Anti-Federalists proposed a large number of arguments, there was no specific central theme to Anti-Federalist efforts in either opposing or substantially modifying the proposed Constitution. Their most important positions were:
- powers of the national (or federal) government should be specific and limited6
- the country was too large for a republic focused on a national government
- states would become meaningless in the new governing arrangement
- the formula for representation in the legislature was to large
- term limits (or rotation) were required
- the federal judiciary posed a mortal danger to the republic
- a bill of rights identifying both states’ and the people’s rights was required
- and, most importantly, the new ‘consolidated’ national government would inevitably lead to despotism and tyranny
These and many additional and related issues, such as the frequency of elections, led many Anti-Federalists to conclude that the eventual outcome of the Constitution would be worse than the then current Articles of Confederation or would at least require significant changes to the draft Constitution.”
1The Federalists were actually centralists and not ‘federalists’ in the true sense of that term. ‘Federalists’ supported a strong central government as the principal governing body over the country. The name of ‘Federalists’ was usurped by Hamilton to support the centralist position and undermine opposition. The ‘Anti-Federalists’ were much more federalist, or confederalist, than their opponents, and were certainly not antifederalist in their perspectives on our governing model. See Melancton Smith’s speech of June 25, 1788 for his request that the two sides exchange names.
2Herbert Storing assisted by Murray Dry did a great service to their country by publishing The Complete Anti-Federalist (1836 pages) in 1981. This review focuses only on a very few of these papers.
3Even a cursory review of the Anti-Federalists and their papers reveals the falsity of this charge.
4Brutus was likely Robert Yates, a leading Patriot during the Revolution, a New York judge and delegate
(with Alexander Hamilton) to the federal convention which eventually drafted the Constitution. He was an ally of fellow Anti-Federalist New York Governor George Clinton.
5Federal Farmer was possibly Richard Henry Lee, although there remains significant doubt about the
actual author.
6Hence, Madison’s retort in Federalist #45 “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” This was, of course, as mal-interpretations of the Constitution progressed, false.
Here is the full paper that can be downloaded as a PDF file: