ififedeira1im
& Revolutionary Ideals
DeL]MeKk
n 1787, delegates from twelve states met in Philadelphia to change the government of the United States under the Articles of Confederation. After much debate and compromise, they produced the Constitution, a document that represented a major change in public administration. The Constitution created a new republican government, with a strong central administration linking the different states together. Some people opposed the new Constitution; collectively this group is known as the Anti-Federalists. While historians have spent much time and energy studying their counterparts, the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists are less well known. Luther Martin believed that the Constitution endangered Americans because of its emphasis on national government. “When our liberties were at stake [during the Revolution], we warmly felt for the common rights of men, The danger being thought to be past -eare daily grow ing more insensible to those rights.” For ‘1artin, the Constitution refuted the Revolutionary ideals.2 Edmund Randolph was also concerned about the possibility of intrusion into civil liberties. While he recognized the failure of the Articles of Confederation, mainly due to the necessity of a unanimous vote to amend them, he also worried about “unreasonable subjection of the will of the majority to that of the minority.”3 George Clinton, Governor of New York, spoke of rights in this way: ‘s each individual has one vote in civil society.. .so each state sought... to have one vote in federal society As the preservation of the rights of individuals is the object of civil society, so the preservation of the rights of states (not individuals) ought to be the object of federal society”4 of to of to
of
the
and
the
be
new
that
that
and
their
argu
more
pow
argu
these
Rob
initial mean of
refuta a spoke
written legacy These
scheme
govern
guaran people
amend
the revert debates
hands
and
ratifica
the
of
objector, Catched
War,
or
Articles
This
to
objected
and their to
The the
guarantees power. of
government
the their
balance
Constitution
participated
believed
because
They
affirmation state
considered to
examined, Has Mason
limited in The
central
early
Civil
ideology
the
the
state Today’s
They
citizens, new an
had cases, Randolph,
preferring
proposed
which document. support the
the
they if
the government
reflection to
others
debate,
The
appeared
tVho
letters and
the
history,
British.
a
of was
power
various
who
the
of
who
Britain.
some George
importance
affirmation
documents.
government.
of
Another
the
what
as until
Indeed,
the
in the
in
jury that
patriots,
documents
sign Rights, Edmund
the
the
men
Anti-Federalists
more
and
of lost
those
including
by
Parliament.
Lee. institutions.
over
to
as
system
but
However, seen
Farmer.5 of
series
the
dangerous expense
Delegate
rewritten.
from particularly
central the states.
of
a
American over are
from
two
be of trial
Constitution’s
resolved Gerry, place
Constitution
the
to
such Bill
of
Constitution in
believed
even
Henry
Henry KAHN
British to of
all
at American
refused
arose the
Rights.
presence
not can
the ideals, Federal
government
wrote
new came strong the
and
the
essentially
Anti-Federalist
in
the
loss
of
but
opinion a
event
opposition,
of
was
“tyranny” the
Constitution,
completely
states and
Elbridge
decentralized
Patrick these
of
unidentified
directions.
Bill
Richard
power
a
point
be
central provisions,
Smith,
between betrayal. the the opposition
than preferred
the
imperial several
against
citizens,
a
whether
unworkable,
the to the Anti-federalists
documents
to of power
DEBBIE
and
groups’
and
ideals,
pseudonym
the
perceived
or
Mason,
of
Anti-Federalists
Constitution
important
was
under
Convention
federal certain
different and
rather
maintain
Virginia,
the
tension
ratification
former
uniFy-ing the difference
about
both
that
an
Anti-Federalists
in
rebelled
power needed of
a
Among
new
became examines
federal
distant Melancton
represented
ideals,
and
the
Some group
the
Lansing,
individual
of
a Anti-Federalists,
George
the
from
provisions
system
was
or main the
under
ideas
create
to
include
in
and
argue fueled
later
of
Anti-federalists
limits
states. the
to
to to to
paper
the
bulk
other
the
both
John
government them.
Lee,
Revolutionary felt
revealed
York ratification,
will
To
that
is
of
the the proceeded state function government,
to
leadership,
The
Constitutional
the I
objections.
of
Though
This included of
he
debates, The
previous
Constitution
new
of
representation,
response
linked
Yates,
New
the
local is Revolutionary “tyranny” ment
Confederation local
in teed ment. the many of government
ing dissent tion amended could
ers ments the the Revolution
ments
rights can continues tween about
early
objections in men
ert possibly of
against tion
2$ tion, fundamental ties the Anti-Federalists ple, fore more is Ivlelancton power.” sentatives argues drive that since structure, ested that Gordon the that the Charles the ernme,n. popularity, nations documents, may nal convention convention with farme Centinel, eral ancton Cold, for to corruption to Constitution elite Anti-Federalists objections Abraham and was Committee Historian Anti-Federalists do say, the During Historians have arguing Many both Cincinnarus, closely found in the wrote the Smith of exist Beard, wanted Wood their preferable possiblyJohn Anti-Federalists, dominant of Neither focusing While because republic, had possibly groups Anti-Federalists the Smith were published published of the its like a represent the Antfrderatisrn case take that class-based Yates, made letter Constitution and of a continued Herbert these author most have to people as wrote great the not far 1950s, probably a the feared referred for place on citizens’ frame possibly heirs of some to distant Samuel motive and as to less several Jr., studied letters widely extreme documents were themes a Federalists a letters their “distrust of Francis deal the open the the themselves.” central bill consensus Storing over than also to George An “the the letters, interpretation to and chairman local true to and very read distrusted of Richard rights Revolutionary objections.9 of of of and speeches, read Economic explore Anti-Federalist Bryan, letters Constitution and helped of as three the people.”3 political Mercer, influence formed and the rights human government.’7 powerful founding of interests a “aristocracy” represent like by much added nor by essays.8 Clinton, were Federalist “fickle reminded Federal the historians opposing key Revotutionarj average this and citizens, Henry Centinel’s, of Inkrpretation citizens the is both and However, some expression and majorities widely like behavior periods. the that a of interpretation on She and and And central Anti-Federalists the fathers, new to careful Brutus, Robert ideals, American Farmer, their the committee. opposition Anti-Federal Lee,7 opposition. their citizens. basis it protect people states, these
to e]PF ratification. needs like minority inconstant in in In reprinted, can minority twist fulfill were Progressive Anti-Federalist Maryland, national government. of local a and and is federalist who Cecelia analysis preserving for in the Yates, sense, letters be the “they of are self-interest, the of Ideals to an Generally, often other society their possible is the Constitution, to a government citizens, after elected In of their Kenyon’s The systematic people particularly insatiable of prime spint.’° the thought.’° or Kenyon took In and, trusted and were Albany Kenyon New of the the duties.’° reprinted, objections.” A Smith,6 Pennsylvania, 1969. ratification counterparts, era examinations the and responsibili liberty state pseudonym [Maryland] for given them, ratification ratification and familiar agency York, from rhetoric.’2 historian, the new and the portrays Antifed Kenyon political conten sees granted lust argued exami would repre there Other “The inter origi along what from Mel peo their gov that and this the for of of to 29 if
in
In
of
in the the
of
but the
will
the
far
the
that and
able
with were
had
Con
they
right
Little
Anti- since local
to
of
so
rather
attend
stated,
be
seat
corrupt
believes
of Martin,
sign of
the the
the
Indepen
to that
under
which distrusted
republican
states itself.”23 defense
He
to degree, peers”
the not happiness,”
to
engaging stressed
of
and
of
Therefore, ideology
part
saw government.
participate
granted created life then
free
“Men
they a
Anti-Federalists
The
The
Luther
adoption
Anti-Federalists
to
one’s
the Duncan government
conjunction
points,
some
Revolution,
citizens
be
would
equals
certain refused politicians,
laws
the
supposed
that grievance
good “public
remote the in the
to
a
power which a
key
therefore
the of
national
local
rights. be
from
affairs.”2’
of
guarantees
the
established,
as on capital
to
and government.
points. before
of
argues it
on
of
Kenyon’s
Declaration
gain under
control. it
people and
miles
for
sense,
happiness.”
feared
their their
“happiness,”
the Revolution.
believes and
realm
key
He
can
true new
lack several government. the states’
even
republican live
public the of
to
Anti-Federalists
of
notion only
1994, fifty ideals
this
local
the
removed people
Convention,
itself
be
to of with activity
also on few in
professional
since
this
the
go
desire
and
in to
In
the a
consider
that the the
can
good
the
to
faith.”
He government
KAHN of
central
political
travel
may miles
this
and
on
communities, as
of
mostly agree unity,
“pursuit
position,
heirs about willing
public
fear
one
contact
communit)
states
of
the
definition
not
of
to a
voters.
writing
he
inconvenient,
the
willing
in
Storing,
Anti-Federalists
distant
with opposed
the explores agree happiness”
rights,
individual
this government by
national
a entirely
single
Different was not
kind direct
liberties.29 of Constitutional thousand
assertion less
a “participation
different
feeling of
in
little
For
of
would a
paper. did
a of The
also concerns
education
appear
different a
found respected
example
DEBBIE
be
of both
any
any
life
ideological the
the
of government
little
Duncan,
preserve
this
his
This have “the
chosen be idea
republic He
to the would
did
than to
the
feel
the
in
even
people of to
individual when had as
moral citizens’
not
of
have
believed “pursuit
their the . tyranny would
Constitution
perfect
if
only comprised
“Men
not
protect
They
to small more
freedom
a
in
threat
did
and
itself.2’
later
and
depends.”9 they people
the
the
about
not
a
the
to
is
a they
be
that
delegate
Anti-Federalists
submit
became the
defines
protect
because
participation.2
as Christopher Anti-federalists
for
and would
seem
“could
court..
that
affairs.
to
jury became
the
he
feared
threatened
was
inhabitants
ever
words,
would
republicans
For Constitution.22
average
political and
not
by this wanted
The
Anti-Federalists
examined document
believed
participate
public
the
government
power
county
that
stitution government meant states did Constitution the be
Faith”
linked new to
which conversation well-received says dence other Federalists early
trial of government, necessity they a than
thought the
Maryland’s “if document a
would which He government, national away, no
Martin
3° state remote, states, a ments governance would was Federalists, before common this guaranteed other other the sons. tion. three some were rejected way, and were opposed This and like republics exceptions, lic, education, such the republic activities. communicate and distant last the deficiency one themselves, relatively the should The spoke According thought their While willing The Each The kind other homogeneity of key high types a understood the keep did and public local loss national the of the the was law points: second would While first objections Anti-Federalists To of Revolution. crimes. about of was or not objections should of and be all the disinterested original Americans to of only ideals An1ftderatisrn entire understanding that homogeneous dominated government the these anything two small good more given criminal accept of seemed the trial appear foundations it to not the function the government. major Anti-Federalists, states’ a depends the in the points The a of lack be be stronger document points byjury Anti-Federalists strangers language. is communities strict can at closely right certain this the needs stronger Anti-Federalists that found. sacrificed in least like of document else.”27 cases, flaw rights, from be the government were well, the Revolution. new also would to provision reading was on many placed a and of of local with enough of American a in Bill cases, . step accidents.”27 who a Since and nor form addressed Both feared because and trial their Brutus the than important the . the that basic therefore to [with] of be of government their who formed made backwards, in rules inadequate of into had Revolutiona?y wanted a by of Constitution, groups for Rights. society l5ower too citizens national, all them system. mainly civil thousand the in the jury, right also preferred government, judicial representatives citizens often opposed no states’ two different was the similar no in corruption to Constitution, small, cases. shared. by extremes They argued to expressed the and states’ general to guarantees United that more more
the ePF To treason, cited govern and rights. the would try scheme since initial should views; system, economy to the because writers eliminate did priorities To local they according pertinent thoroughly individual rights, They also that colonial Montesquieu, again, States categories: Ideals but Constitution the not of of They the allow and amendments, similar it had government, counterfeiting, be and of that “in their wealth, for wanted and for Anti-Federalists, trial believe is frequently idea “. and varied ruled protect and representation, capital,3° and believed subordinate constituents this a defendants enjoyed America, . monitor state different than to government, . trial large concerns by states representa than of only those those interests.29 provision by the to influence, that jury between govern an English in a its by amend people repub within large, could wrote Each Anti- while could some there local even large jury ideal own their who who rea was and on or in to to 3I all
is
so
of
ac
the
for
leg on be are
op
The new
were were
that
effec two,
ideals
most lower done
1788,
feared entire
senti
would
being
that
was
feared
defec
the
opposi
present
only highest
4,
the
wish objected
declara more the
the
and “there the
and
wondered
in he
called
represen the would
have at
a
which was stated
in
I
corrupt
the
and not
is
Pennsylvania
a since
with also
palatable. 1787,
and
it
Anti-Federalists He
annihilation
saw onJune short,
that it or about people,
system.
middle did
exclamations
classes
between
of
bombastic,
convince
present
government
government
states, horn,
Union In
scheme
Constitution
Constitution concerned
see
The
They
say rejecting
colonies, the
Revolutionary Anti-federal
utter my
began
new
they
Anti-Federalists
of
will
make
less
many flawed, to
the of
Henrys
well
Years
the
will
Henry
“this
the
that
the representatives
so
the
if would
that
in
several
not document.
conventions,
general 1787,
kind
to government,
offices.
Monarchy, Aristocracy;
in hope
of
of
that “laboring” December
confess, .“the
much
favored
I
some
a
American
the
the of I
security.”3
of
the
Patrick
themes
in
this Since
problems
basically
goes
could
of
Constitution thought
and that
had
the danger no
states.”33 simi1at of
intact
what
a
representation. concluded
KAHN certainty
he
national a of reject
other.”36
interests
He the number that vibrate generations] .
decided are
and
the states.
moderate 1788.32
produce
ratification
process
of laws to .
pre-Revolutionary
fill
to
saw
“though,
the
common
the .
minority,
representatives
“a of
of
They
the remain lover
the
the
small
the or
states
conclusion, They
a
“Objections” state
shared [future
wanted
“middling”
liberty.
fundamental Constitution
of
will.
amendments constitutions
Anti-federalists would
proposal
probably Englishmen. many
scheme more
from April
am one
his it
and,
over
because
would
over. I
legislature, the
“a they DEBBIE
in
objection
on the “perfection,”
of become Out
they committee electors. represent in principles.”37 and
their that will few
logical
the
that
separate
a nile it
the
that seemingly
different
in that
its
Pennsylvania
York
shut rights;
engagements
union,
laws
their
by
in
powerful
stripped
discussed
Anti-Federalists
based
the
could
whether found
at
would
expect
major
proposed
starting
group
the
flawed
hearing,
of
be
of
two
or
Mason,
he in
the
the
man, The
argued
preserve
the
New
see
only
governance
not
the Anti-Federalists
also
that
to
the of ratification
of
and
to
worried
York,
third
Constitution
to
solemn
did fundamental
but person rich,
[sic]
about and
of
terminate
government,
broad did
rights
would
Aristocracy;
Parliament’s would
picture
local
as
the
document
and
George
the
The
one A he
of
New
Other
York’s
Brutus
most
then
worthy
utmost government
like
in
declaration
the
citizens, distant power about
worried tiveness islature,
classes curate
popular, how concerned be represented fundamentally
document
minorities and Constitution. to
called tion,3’
the dissolution not my sceptical
ment. no tions the paramount
impossible pressive and
New
while tive tation, underrepresented
L32 or left such in this protect level, power every federal several grasp power intended without surances ..‘ill people dangerous conscience.42 He lack twenty-seven many publications to inadequate Federalist reprinted government make power ford George management entrusted essay difficulties, of orders his the the to the later right Luther The of an Centinel, that Robert then source at letter about future of opinion an states. to adequate of be midling states.”4’ their taxes in of provision inestimable omnipotence, considering Clinton, states written about the invariable Congress, in life, tax with Pennsylvania security argument, the Pennsylvania state that better and representation. to Martin the newspapers that
people, Antifideratism would of Yates must generations major According He of as as times, individual the another the of that power [sic] Americans void Congressional revenue,” governments to they was into other a opened state for able the care be Maryland to and the way not the Anti-Federalist spoke object privilege class or unless of jury the since also reprinted equal paid, term the leaders of and to end.”3 that of key John internal meet be Articles sympathy, twenty to minority had to risks, the plan of to states, trials, Constitution, the administeringjustice out including details able it of before They writeI themselves, needed historian and particularly remove “a and grant citizens, was states, any Lansing, under legislature as
our and of letter will about a and government limits, multiple to times, of concerns, if and this permanent suitable Centinel, also one the of and govern long pursuit.”° discussed the not saw
or Congress Revotutionarj Confederation argues to that objections. power by the their both those would the strangers Saul nation.” discussed of was deny, adopt replied fellow problems in have swallow will stating Congress’ times.4’ because current inhibited “a a in lack government.”43 such a other an that states’ Cornell, small they already be responding from future letter based 1 have so in
the ©]Pf a feeling.”38 is important liberty 787•4b They of that ignorant new his a “the to organized among able the all The up ought Brutus responsibilities.45 money group large provision system “We rights been of their to first were on of general state and lack the seemingly believed collected
“Such Ideals state form this Cincinnatus to first which New representation, the political expected territory therefore its and “monopolise . Brutus, secured, of ability, and also piece of of restrained, to lettei not to . government. of governments lettei citizens, of . Regarding rights ... Anti-federalist power York a powers the for Federalist enforce second Convention we government. the so that weighed government body at of jury wants, which sentiments cannot unlimited in weak wished concerns reprinted with the rights governor the to and that wanted the granted another . and of as letters . retain trials laws, must Anti- state that such (sic) and new not was and the the the the the in, as the are af of If
to 33 as
the to
of
the the did
the
the
rep the
only
class
kept
and
state view,
pres
of
other
classes
on power consti highly
central as
well
of
“small” He
prevent Luther
be people, powers,
govern Consti
lack men.”93
his
speeches for,
that
first
from
the represent as
so
the
filled the amended
to
objecting
lest
rest
ideals. the
In the of
of convention,
the
is
the the
rights
lower
the itself
of
amended be state
to
state be
for, purposes;
ideals
of
of
only
should
representation. fought of
it
might that
the qualified be believe
these
while
of the
that
it
series
drawn.”5
removal the
minds
classes.
first.”5°
body
local about
of
interests”
defined, a
had ought of
are would
not
fought
men
of
to wanted
power government.”52
Cincinnatus,
participate
lack
could
that
the
could the
be
the ratification
interests
and
ensure was
did Gerry,
worried
to
gave lower
government had
they who
Senators, as
importance
latter the
regarding position
the composed ratio
like nor to
certain
the
them
These
Smith
he Patriots and
the
infect
accurately federal
securities
for this be
the
concerns
class they
rights York’s
should the
for
The
flawed,
class,
Smith
believed
of
inviolable.”1 the
be same
chosen in the
about
the
ensured Elbridge
best 1788, office.
that
limiting linked
writers
vote
but New
be
and
concerns that
adopted,
KAHN states
the
amended
white
on,
represent
for
nation
Constitution those
out
the
stressed to
to
not generally
laughable,
mean be domestic
be
should
June constantly
of
the
exactly And-federalists
middling purposes. necessary
of
not
government.
run
the
took
“middling”
In
other
powerful.49
check
will
of sacred
of did not
our
Congress not
to “..
spoke They
the ignore
are liberties
to emphasis
kind
one
convinced
advocated
the
would in of
anxious the
and delegate
is
of government.
would
the Smith and government, and
a about
this
also
am national
so
could DEBBIE
national group
could
afford
fears.
power principles Constitution, Anti-federalist
of
remain and
people
rich
seats
“I jurisdiction it jury
be
which because
for
.Men
the
to and
of,
the
the
of
representation objection rights
by of Senate
allowing
create itself
the the
wrote
their
Smith, could
Smith not
by form
guardians
also
national
representation.
governments
interests,
of
the representatives
the
previous
that that
line
flawed and a
up
ought
Melancton
will
“trial
who
could
of
“the since
Their
and liberty, representatives
important
the aristocratic
to Senate so the
forgotten. satisfy
own
useful number
and
.the
about be of
supporter
of and ratification, “State
and
government
a
that
to do
document
men
power. be
community..
that
to
was
opinion, decided
Melancton
Melancton the their
Cincinnatus
of
Many
While object small
found
the
aristocracy
rich
swallowed the
check,
his
stating people, against
worried government, an number
tuted, would in the resentatives, only by
arguing general former... not in be
both ments He
aristocratic legislatures,
only people, In
Martin, tution enough ervation Revolution. that Constitution preservation group
become
34
to Constitution
commercial
However, the
to
seven
also
trial
Congress, perfect,
dated
the
beforehand, they
the
tion
some
Constitution
lengthy
and the
needed
which
was
December
Virginia
question had
cess.
while
end prior
happen.
While
amend
tion,
adapted
respects to
[sic],
strong
create
end the
regulation
amendments
mediating
concerned
of
by
little
that
of
Rictsard
“persuaded,
could
Edmund
Vhile
Both
northern
he
amendments than
October
to
others
a
he
the
centralized
jury,
the
of
could
a
it:
description
did
ratification,
and
in Some to I
constitution
of
he
policies
to
Lee
worrying
central was
the
state
But think
groups
after
only
Constitutional
June
1787
laws,”
the
do
ratification.
see
abounds they many
feared
Antftderatism
and wanted
would
fundamental
Henry
be
also
union.58
of
not
Randolph,
of
with
states cannot
about
1787,
wanted
‘exigencies
powers,
some vote
it?”
that it
improved
giving
andJulv
commerce.
would
the
that
that
state
government,
these
were
willing
said,
Anti-federalists has
nature
to
that
a
be
of the
each
certain
Lee
power “yes”
he
stated
lack
with dissolution
potential,
the
of
the
Randolph
would
the this
ratified.37
disputes, great
why
a
his approach active
states
his
“upon
the
(See
abandon
and
the
second
power
at
also
group
document,
Convention,
governor
of
of
objections, of
useful
of
confederation
by object
or
main
reasons
composition
his
the
over
amendments
the
Appendix
other
merit,
Since
United
representation the
government,’
favor
would
1788,
and
amendments.
at
“no,”
thought
the
reasons
particularly
concerns
time
of Articles
had
he
He
the
convention
called
contention
of
regulations,
the
new
that
be
the
Anti-Federalists
Revolutionary whole
the
for
a
wanted
shipbuilding,
argues and
both
of
the
without
worried
be
same
(October
its
better
particularly
States
“bare
the
five
Constitution,
Anti-Federalists
government,
until
objecting
Virginia,
for
states
I
that
in
that
own
union.
of
by
for
didn’t
about
published plan
...
was
included
danger
southern
a time,
the
the
because
and
obtained proper
majority
was changes
ratification
Lee, second a
the
ought
included
to
opinion
ePE
in
the
that
at
and
my
graph.)
destitute
for
1787)
legislature
states
consider
While
the
the work,
the
preservation
From
the
Constitution,
benefit
wrote
to
in
say,
if
if
opinion
regarding
their
us
supported.59
in
to
Ideals
amendments,
same
convention
states legislature.5°
lack
which
a
their
the
the
northerners
process “provision stated
to to
about
to
before
of
needed
the
letter
over
foreign
possess.”6
Randolph and
October
used
representation
pursue
sign
an
by
Constitution.
people
of
the
votes
of all
of
papers.
ratification
time
with
would
is
New
would
that
open
why
every
agriculture.6’
regarding how
provision
amendments,
to
amendments
by the
more
a
that,
Constitution
of
each
policy
ratification
Randolph
can
it
while
which
will is
regard
to
were
“in
1787,
Constitu
York
liberty.”54
America
decided it
give
is
He
letter
made
wanted
After Timing
lead
may
discuss energy,
as
defini
should
liable
enact
be othei
many
was
this pro
told
and
im
the and
the
for
He
the
the
to
to
in
to
be
in
to
a 35 a
is
a to
to
to to be all
as to
of
the
the
the
the
not
and
was as out mil also
The
to
adopt
many
1788,
to
of “for found
under
bill
fought is
that
set Farmer
did
and
to
prior
hands, is
four it
measures
Constitu
guardians published
altogether,
amend
It Smith awareness
convention
trial.67 He
had
[citizens]
or
added explicitly,
to
objections
convention
the
of corrected.”65
InJune and
written
Farmer’s
they possible
Federal
be
Constitution
liberties
convention
doubted try
government a
government
different
rational
as
three them
ajury
to and
system.
(sic)
their
government
to in
legislature
willingness stated
Constitution
the
the
in The
to
of
second
He
1788, that continued
amendments.66
amendments
good
Melancton
federal in
a be
amendments, a most
Americans and proposal
the
our Constitution
the
supported
saw
government.
to
to
revised
needed
on right
“enable
ratification.
the
May
the
the
powers
ratification
centinels
proposed
some
also
classes. be
to new
regarding
without
opinions affairs the In
about among believed
government believe
echoed
of
accept a it
express
conventions
some Congress.65
the
essential
the
ought
participation
acting
of freedoms
to of offices
he the
let
Cold
generally in
pursue
as in
and
prior
secure support were ratify
KAHN the important
and
that
in
state
the
abandon
recommended lack
were
to
as
will
to both needed
form
rights
Maryland
deposits
did
turn,
Maryland
concerns to the
a
“middling” farmer, group
things only
seemed
be
the period,
also
convention
in
he
the
byjuiy Catched
the
of
feelings,
Constitution. hard
to voted since
amended some
the
nation
and
“touching want that He at This good
preserve
represented
Anti-Federalists the
good
urged
and
trial
knowledge Has
be
the
as
Federal DEBBIE to
of
jury
be the
representation, that
amendments,
them.”64
over
not
liberty.
that
people conventions
included to
amendments.62
forward,
and
by
and
worked
liberties. the
many interests,
However,
Who
end majority
way that .
but
Anti-Federalists
could
did
farmer
rule the
amendments, .
idealism,
legislature,
would
To
class-conscious
it
trial
obtain
the
the
proposed
perhaps
to the which “the come stating
several
principles, these
He best Revolution.
if
at
necessary
are.
stated
to
elitist
but
Regarding
of
necessary
and amendments.”
preserving
right.”63
and
their
minority
the
the
the
Federal
Anti-Federalists Delegate specific
pro-amendment
letter
the
only
in to sense,
of
other.”66
amendments information
people,” and
the in
the loss
term,
a
people,
positive,
elective
“there
was
The of The Representation
but
The
considered
The
In
about delegate
document,
circumstances,
on
open
the
during
each
agree
with
Revolutionary
it discuss propose Constitution. since essentially amendments, ed
to presumed objections. Brutus dangers of
also lions acquire
well-constructed society; of essential
an wanted Maryland ratification, the
tion, this talk document, limited rights for mostly
the of prevent
36
loss,
by
tage
jury
serted
in recent
battles
Their
the
had
such representation.
Constitutional The
wielded
Amendment
two
into
ments perhaps
fied,
The
should
document,
cided point
the to
stitution.
form
Farmer intellectual while
living Their
acceptable,
they
in
from
Texas
the
arrive
the
primacy
preservation
that already
the
the
The
was
of
an Of
but Constitution
issue In
Some
believed
of
interpretation
by
its
that
Supreme
state.
they
a
between inJune
under
Declaration
fears
be
a
untried
ideas
them:
Union.
was
each
great government.
sensing
this potentially
was
point,
the
right at
a
Whether
Anti-Federalists
sense,
defeated
the
that
right
had
a
each
of
While
they
of
process.
argued
about
a
Antftderatism
important
more
three
instrumental such
VI.
that
stand
1789.
power were
to
good the
Constitution
Convention.
local
states’
or
national
remained many
Court
system
Perhaps
the
the
of
of
all
that
impose
These
was passionately
Anti-Federalists
are
a
the
emotional
constructing
or distant
of
issues
liberties
the
agreed
out not
example
enough
Madison
of
losers
shift
tyrannical over
system
Richard
Others,
under
every
changed.
ideas
still Independence.
Anti-Federalists case
ratified
rights
was
basic
group
Anti-federalist
possible
as
and
one
issues
national
in
the
gave mentioned,
unresolved
in
of
and
cool,
debated
regarding on
just
deferred
did
about
British
that
the
over
the
local
American
of
interpretation bringing
understanding
in
acted
like
this
government
left
and
without
what
Henry
calling
powerful
were
not
the
and
this
wind, rational
a
Articles
dispassionate
Amendment
Americans
within
representation Patrick
to
governments
debate
government decade
the
came
Revolutionarj
well
citizen
protect
and they
United
tension.
Americans.
dangerous
to
homosexuality
essentially
They
for
Lee,
kind
North
did
would
by
amendments,
the
writers
a
political
the
after
questioned
to
arguments,
did
of
Henry
the
later
central
became
the
or
introduce
had their
new
was
of
these
George
wanted
of
confines
States
had
Confederation;
of
The
not
elpE
defeat
two
the
Carolina
have
voices
amendments
government
date,
began
IX,
privacy
that
the
over
enjoyed
and
beliefs
government,
positions
so
amendments
want.
fought
conservative;
in
first
government
liberties
federal
earlier.
the
considered
perils
a
and
continues
or
Ideals
Congress to
new
are
or
Mason,
laying
different
Luther
and
the
butJames
of
legacy
arguing
nine with
winners
protect
amendment
and
perhaps
over
is
for.
part
the
trial
for first
of
government
Because
that
still
local
through
sufficiently
states
the
out
Rhode that
They
the
Martin,
the
Constitution.
many
was
of
and
of
and
ten
reflected
issues.
for
by
to
during
came the
protections
this
same
amending
addressed
over
standards
the objections
new
Madison,
Madison
one
the belief
would
had
this
jury
amend
a
that
trial
had
Federal
of citizens
case
a
Island
years.
of
better
states
heri
time. Con
seem
held
goal:
clear
The
from
rati
day.
this,
and
the
as
the
de
by
of
in
in
in be
a 31] VA
PA pro
pro
CT
of
&
&
effect
Rights
& ratifies
introduces
rejects
ratifies
ratifies
ratifies
NJ,
Ratil, ratifies
Ratify
End
amendments of
ratifies, ratifies;
amendments EVENTS
GA SC
Convention RI NY NC
MD takes
NC
Constitutional Constitution DE,
ratifies Bill
NH
MA
poses
poses
Madison
Gerry,
Edmund
Has
Cold
Lee
AMENDMENTS Farmer
Farmer
Minority
Who
Minority
Elbridge
WITH
Henry
Federal Catched
Federal
KAHN
Albany
Delegate Maryland
Randolph,
ACCEPT
Richard
1
DEBBIE
Brurus
Farmer
Farmer
Minority
Smith,
(“Speech”),
(“Objections”),
Henry
OBJECtION
Centinel
Mason
Mason
Yates/Lansing
Patrick
APPENDIX
(Maryland]
[Maryland]
Melancton
Citmcinnatus,
A
Pennsylvania A -
COMPLETE
George
George
FEB JUL
APR JUN
OCT DEC
NOV JUN
APR
MAY
SEPT
AUG MAR
1787
MAY
1788
NOV MAY MAR
1789
1790 Press, resentative Early American Chicago Press, vol. cago cago vol. Tradition convention Federal Constitution Con.,tztstwn the areas 1 I latc Press, Press, American 22 2t ° (New 1981), (New ‘ ‘ ° 1999), 9 Debbie 7 5 4 2 ° of 6 Consutuuon, in Press, Duncan, Ilsid., Storing, Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Herbertj. Ibid., Ibid., Cecelia Christopher Ibid., Cornell. Cornell, Ibid., I1,id., Herbert Herbertj. Herbert Ibid., Luther Edmund 18th interest History A.t As Government,’ America, sf178?,” 1981), York: York: 1981), 21. 315. Recommended Recommended 5. 70. 39. 32. 33. vol. 25. and vol. 1981), 13. 382, Kahn Political An%frderalzsrn M. Martin, j. I Burt j. Butt The The “Men II. Chat and 215-216; Randolph, 5, 2, 1788-1828 include Storing, Storing, Storing, 19th 386. Storing, Kenyon, in in 5. 5. 51. 130. Other Other is Franklin, Franklin. the Culture, The Thought,” The Of a Duncan, By Anti-Federalists centuries. ‘Luther William By first-year Founders, Founders, Debates Debates Saul A ed. political IC/tat ed., The ed., The “Men “ Different (Chapel Williamsburg, 1968), 1968), The General What Cornell, General and Letter the Martin’s The “Men in in Polip Of 309-311. 315. Complete Anti-Federalists graduate Map’ The The and and the Complete 484-486. 374-375. Hill: Utile Convention Il’ere Faith,” of Convention 26(3) Anti-Federalists Of Several Several The Quarterly Letter intellectual His Published Revotutionarj Anti-Federalist, 1’br Faith: A Virginia, Other (1994): Anti-Federalist, 393. student, Excellency I)iflèrent State Slate 11. At to At Were And-Federalists 12 Founders: the Philadelphia Philadelphia Conventions C’onvestrons 388. (I) for Were by For
Maryland ©PF history studying (1955): Faith: the vol. the Edmund (Chicago: For DEBBIE Anti-federalism vol. Omohundro 2 University in On On (Chicago: The (Chicago: in 33. with Ideals 6 1787, Legislature The The American 1787, On (Chicago: Anti-Federalist Randolph, University Adoption Adoptisn a The ed.Johnathan ed. primary of University University And Institute Nature Jonathan North on University history Of Of The Esq., of the The The NOTES focus KAHN Dissenting Carolina Of Chicago of Ideal of of Federal on lb federal Elliot, Elliot, Early Rep Chi Chi Her deral the on of In 39 the The ed.
The
vol.
Con
Stor
In
vol.6,
In
Storing,
Pennsyl
since Storing, Constmct
Storing, the Storing, ed. Storing, Pennsyl
byjustices
contended
of
ed.
of by
ed. ed.
Storing, ed. ed. ed.
Debates
Anti-Ihderalist. Anti-Federalist,
laws, Debates
Storing,
150-162.
Constitution,” 154.
They
ed.
The Anti-Federalist,
ed.
The
Gorn,
2003]
formed
in
18-320. 2003J
Federalvit,
nti-federalist. in
3
C’omplete vol.3,
Ckmplete
7,2003]
7,
(particularly vol.3,
election 15, A
Convention
Convention
National Elliot
election.
Anti-
Complete
federalist,
The
The
Anti-Federalist,
Anti-Federalist, Anh-federalist, the Anti-Federalist,
the
state -Federalist,
2002),
the in
in
of
The
Storing,
lasvs. Ants-
of
Complete opinion 2000
Storing,
Anti
in
Government
Legislature,”
Oompkte
ed.
[Drcember
[December
about Legislature,” the
ed.
The Complete
[November
Complele
Complete
own Complete
II.
of
signing
in
The
on its
2,
Complete Dissent,”
The
to
Minority The
The l..ongman,
The
minority
Minority
Complete
New-York,”
in
argue
New-York,”
of
in New-York,”
New-York,” in
in
in
The vol. the
19-20.
of
to the
the Maryland
of
The about
of of
Maryland
in
of
KAHN
in
of
decision
Committee,” Vesli-v
7. in
For,
the Anti-Ihderalist,
1788,
1788,
Esq.,” Esq.,”
State
Constitution the
2,
State objections place
more
to State State
Storing,
used
“Reasons to
Jibe
F59.,”
21, the Pennsylvania,” 27,
362. the
1788,
New-York,”
Dissent the
the
vol.
the the Dissent
381.
Court’s
ed.
to
of
I., of
Addison was 4, Complete
of of much
of
1, CompleteAntz-Federalist.
Wilson, Wilson,
of Letter 309.
of of
Gerry’s June not
Letter
Antifederal
The
vol.
Wilson,
Lansing, The
vol.
York:
Mr.
was Stortng,
know
in
DEBBIE
in People
James
James
Citizens
Supreme
Freemen
-Federalist.
Reasons
Citizens
Citizens Citizens Reasons speech,June
Founders,
speech, ed,
argument
Martin’s
Elliot,
Albany
(Xciv Martin’s
“Objections Elliot,
the “To “To the
the
The
speech,June Anti
Court the “Hon.
would
theAnti-Federalistr and 2
the the
this
ed. and
and]ohn
in
the
Other
II,
“To]ames
ed.
IV,
“To
“I’n
“To Smith,
Smith,
“To
vol.
“To
“To
of
I, II,
What 18.
‘Luther
The
I,
Court
Mason, Gerr5
V,
I, “Luther flenrs
III,
Yates
Complete If,
©PF 394.
394. 409.
2,401. 2, Constituents,”
13.
Address 223.
123-126.
Past, Constituents.”
Souter) Supreme 172. 143. Address
Anti-Federalist,
6,
The
S.
Conventions,
vol. vol.
136-142.
Conventions,
Ibid., Ibid.. Ibid., and Martin,
Storing, Brutus,
Ibid. Interestingly,
“The
‘Address
Patrick in
Ibid., Ibid., George
‘Their Brutus,
Brutus, Brutus,
Cornell, Robert
Ibid, Centinel, Centinel,
U.
“The
Martin, Cincinnatus,
Brutus,
Melancton vol. Their Ibid.
Ibid., Melancton
Cincinnatus, Elbridge Ibid.
Supreme
368.
25 State 23 26 27 20 29 30 32 36 American
To
12.
158. 4t 42 169. State 18. 46
48 6omplete ° 52
the ‘
2,
vol.2,
the
Storing,
Storing,
147.
The
Several
vol. Ginsburg 123-126. that Florida ing
vania Storing,
vention,”
ed. ed.
ing, 2,
vaniaTo
Several vol.6,
vol.6,
vol.6, vol.6, in
40 Storing, Federaltot, ing lenc Federal Its Discussion 69 68 Edmund 67 ° 66 62 °° ‘
95-96. 97. Antftderatism Farmer, Farmer, Farmer, 77w Henry of from Randolph, vol. a People, in &bnoritv a 5,95-97. Lee, IV, III, The Delegate III, Esq..” 1787-1788, “Letters “Letters “Letters complete “Letter “A in of Letter Pamphlets Who the
Anti-1’deralist, and from from from from Maryland ed. Has of the the the the On Paul
His Revotutionary Catched Federal The Federal federal Hon. Excellency, Lcicester Ratifying Constztulion ed, Richard Cold,” farmer,” Farmer,”
Farmer,” Storing, ePF Ford [December [December [December Convention,” Edmund in Of Henry (Brooklyn: vol. The
The Ideals complete 2, United Lee, Randolph, 7, 7, 7, 87. 2003) 2003] 2003] in np., States; Esq., Anti-Federalist, The 1888), to CompleteAnh Pu Esq., hi His shed 503. on Excel Due ed.
the 4I