DOCSLIB.ORG

Antifederalism & Revolutionary Ideals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Antifederalism & Revolutionary Ideals 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 -e are 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 2$ The Anti-federalists preferred to place more power in the hands of local government, rather than a strong central government. This argu ment is the main uniFy-ing point in all of the documents examined, and is linked to ideas about whether the Constitution was an affirmation of Revolutionary ideals, or a betrayal. American patriots, preferring a more local leadership, rebelled against the British over what they considered the “tyranny” of a distant and central government in Britain. The Articles of Confederation represented a decentralized system of government written in response to the former imperial presence of the British. They guaran teed the bulk of power to the states at the expense of the central govern ment. To the Anti-Federalists, the new Constitution appeared to revert to the previous system under the “tyranny” of Parliament. They objected to many of the provisions of the Constitution, including the limited scheme of representation, the perceived loss of trial by jury and state power. I will argue that the opposition of the Anti-Federalists to the new government was an important event in American history, because their dissent revealed a difference of opinion over the importance and mean ing of Revolutionary ideals, and the Constitution’s support or refuta tion of them. Some Anti-Federalists believed that the new government could function and maintain these ideals, particularly if the Constitution amended to include certain provisions, such as the affirmation of the pow ers of the states. Among Anti-federalists are those who proposed amend ments that later became the Bill of Rights. However, others believed that the new government was unworkable, even dangerous to citizens, and that the Constitution needed to be completely rewritten. The ideology of the Revolution fueled both groups’ opposition, but in some cases, their argu ments proceeded in different directions. Though the Anti-Federalists essentially lost the debate, their legacy can he felt in the ratification of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees rights to both individual citizens, and to states. Indeed, the balance be tween state and federal power was not resolved until the Civil War, and continues to create tension between the two institutions. Today’s debates about the limits of federal power can be seen as a reflection of these early objections. This paper examines several Anti-Federalist documents. The initial objections to the new Constitution came from men who had participated in the Constitutional Convention but refused to sign the document. These men included George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, Rob ert Yates, John Lansing, and Richard Henry Lee. Another early objector, possibly Lee, or Melancton Smith, wrote a series of letters to the people of New York under the pseudonym Federal Farmer.5 The other group of documents arose from the various state ratifica tion debates, from Virginia, Patrick Henry and George Mason spoke against ratification, and the unidentified Delegate tVho Has Catched DEBBIE KAHN e]PF 29 Cold, wrote a letter to the chairman of the committee. In New York, Mel ancton Smith made several speeches, and Brutus, the possible pseudonym for Abraham Yates, Jr., George Clinton, Robert Yates, or Smith,6 along with Cincinnarus, possibly Richard Henry Lee,7 and the Albany Antifed eral Committee wrote open letters opposing ratification. In Pennsylvania, Centinel, possibly Samuel Bryan, and the minority of the ratification convention published letters and essays.8 And in Maryland, A [Maryland] farme possiblyJohn Francis Mercer, and the minority of the ratification convention published their objections.9 Many of these documents were widely reprinted, and, given their popularity, were probably read by average citizens. Generally, the origi nal objections and some letters, like Centinel’s, were often reprinted, and may have had a great deal of influence on Anti-Federal thought.’° Other documents, like the letters of the Federal Farmer, are systematic exami nations of the Constitution and represent careful analysis of the new gov ernme,n. While not widely read by citizens, these letters were familiar to the elite Anti-Federalists, and formed some basis for other objections.” Historians have studied Anti-Federalist opposition to the ratification of the Constitution far less than the Federalist opposition. The examinations that do exist take place over three key periods. Progressive era historian, Charles Beard, author of An Economic Inkrpretation of the Constitution, portrays the Anti-Federalists as the true founding fathers, and is particularly inter ested in their class-based interpretation of American society and political structure, focusing on themes of “aristocracy” in Anti-Federalist rhetoric.’2 Gordon Wood continued to explore this interpretation after 1969. During the 1950s, consensus historians like Cecelia Kenyon argued that Anti-Federalists were very much like their federalist counterparts, since both groups feared “the people.”3 She states, “they took for granted that the dominant motive of human behavior is self-interest, and this drive found its most extreme political expression in an insatiable lust for power.” Neither the Federalists nor the Anti-Federalists trusted the peo ple, and wanted to frame the Constitution to protect the people from what Ivlelancton Smith referred to as a “fickle and inconstant spint.’° Kenyon argues the Anti-Federalists distrusted both their national and state repre sentatives because of “distrust of the majorities who elected them, that is to say, of the people themselves.” However, local government would more closely represent the local interests and needs of citizens, and there fore was preferable to a central government.’7 In a sense, Kenyon sees the Anti-Federalists as heirs to Revolutionary ideals, preserving liberty from the corruption of a distant and powerful central government. Historian Herbert Storing added a new twist to Kenyon’s conten tion, arguing that citizens’ rights reminded people of their responsibili ties to the republic, and also helped citizens to fulfill their duties.’° “The fundamental case for a bill of rights is that it can be a prime agency of Antfrderatisrn and Revotutionarj Ideals 3° that political and moral education of the people on which free republican government depends.”9 For Storing, the Anti-Federalists saw the Con stitution as a threat to both individual and states’ rights. The states were meant to protect individual rights, and the lack of power granted to the states threatened citizens’ liberties.29 He also believes the Anti-Federalists did not seem to have any single position, even on the adoption of the Constitution itself.2’ This assertion may be true to a certain degree, but the Anti-Federalists did appear to agree on several key points, which will be examined later in this paper. For Christopher Duncan, writing in 1994, Kenyon’s “Men of Little Faith” became “Men of a Different faith.” He argues the ideology that linked the Anti-Federalists was a fear that the people would not be able to participate in their government as good republican citizens under the new Constitution.22 He also explores the notion of “public happiness,” which he defines as “the feeling one can only gain in conjunction with well-received and even respected public activity before one’s peers” and says this “could only be found in the political realm of equals engaging in conversation about the life of the communit) and the good life itself.”23 In other words, the “pursuit of happiness” of the Declaration of Indepen dence was the freedom of “participation in public affairs.”2’ Therefore, if early republicans believed in this definition of “happiness,” then the Anti- Federalists became the ideological heirs to the Revolution. The defense of trial by jury is a perfect example of this desire for guarantees to the right of public participation.2 The Anti-Federalists feared remote and corrupt government, not the idea of government itself and therefore stressed the necessity for a small republic with mostly local control. Duncan believes they wanted to protect the different communities, and that they distrusted a government comprised entirely of professional politicians, rather than average people chosen by voters. In this sense, the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution opposed the ideals of the Revolution, since the document did not preserve the “pursuit of happiness.” The Anti-federalists did agree on a few key points.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federalist Politics and William Marbury's Appointment As Justice of the Peace
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 45 Issue 2 Winter 1996 Article 2 1996 Marbury's Travail: Federalist Politics and William Marbury's Appointment as Justice of the Peace. David F. Forte Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation David F. Forte, Marbury's Travail: Federalist Politics and William Marbury's Appointment as Justice of the Peace., 45 Cath. U. L. Rev. 349 (1996). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol45/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES MARBURY'S TRAVAIL: FEDERALIST POLITICS AND WILLIAM MARBURY'S APPOINTMENT AS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE* David F. Forte** * The author certifies that, to the best of his ability and belief, each citation to unpublished manuscript sources accurately reflects the information or proposition asserted in the text. ** Professor of Law, Cleveland State University. A.B., Harvard University; M.A., Manchester University; Ph.D., University of Toronto; J.D., Columbia University. After four years of research in research libraries throughout the northeast and middle Atlantic states, it is difficult for me to thank the dozens of people who personally took an interest in this work and gave so much of their expertise to its completion. I apologize for the inevita- ble omissions that follow. My thanks to those who reviewed the text and gave me the benefits of their comments and advice: the late George Haskins, Forrest McDonald, Victor Rosenblum, William van Alstyne, Richard Aynes, Ronald Rotunda, James O'Fallon, Deborah Klein, Patricia Mc- Coy, and Steven Gottlieb.
    [Show full text]
  • The Framers, Faith, and Tyranny
    Roger Williams University Law Review Volume 26 Issue 2 Vol. 26: No. 2 (Spring 2021) Article 7 Symposium: Is This a Christian Nation? Spring 2021 The Framers, Faith, and Tyranny Marci A. Hamilton University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Hamilton, Marci A. (2021) "The Framers, Faith, and Tyranny," Roger Williams University Law Review: Vol. 26 : Iss. 2 , Article 7. Available at: https://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR/vol26/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Roger Williams University Law Review by an authorized editor of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Framers, Faith, and Tyranny Marci A. Hamilton* “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson, and that was the end of it.” —Horace Walpole1 INTRODUCTION There was a preponderance of Calvinists at the Constitutional Convention, nearly one fifth of whom were graduates of the preeminent Presbyterian college of the day, the College of New Jersey, which is now Princeton University.2 Over one third had direct connections to Calvinist beliefs. These leaders of the time reflected on their collective knowledge and experiences for usable theories to craft a governing structure in the face of the crumbling Articles of Confederation. They were in an emergency and felt no compunction to distinguish between governing ideas that were secular or theological in origin. Accounts of the Constitution’s framing rarely credit its Calvinist inspiration.
    [Show full text]
  • MIDNIGHT JUDGES KATHRYN Turnu I
    [Vol.109 THE MIDNIGHT JUDGES KATHRYN TuRNu I "The Federalists have retired into the judiciary as a strong- hold . and from that battery all the works of republicanism are to be beaten down and erased." ' This bitter lament of Thomas Jefferson after he had succeeded to the Presidency referred to the final legacy bequeathed him by the Federalist party. Passed during the closing weeks of the Adams administration, the Judiciary Act of 1801 2 pro- vided the Chief Executive with an opportunity to fill new judicial offices carrying tenure for life before his authority ended on March 4, 1801. Because of the last-minute rush in accomplishing this purpose, those men then appointed have since been known by the familiar generic designation, "the midnight judges." This flight of Federalists into the sanctuary of an expanded federal judiciary was, of course, viewed by the Republicans as the last of many partisan outrages, and was to furnish the focus for Republican retaliation once the Jeffersonian Congress convened in the fall of 1801. That the Judiciary Act of 1801 was repealed and the new judges deprived of their new offices in the first of the party battles of the Jeffersonian period is well known. However, the circumstances surrounding the appointment of "the midnight judges" have never been recounted, and even the names of those appointed have vanished from studies of the period. It is the purpose of this Article to provide some further information about the final event of the Federalist decade. A cardinal feature of the Judiciary Act of 1801 was a reform long advocated-the reorganization of the circuit courts.' Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the judicial districts of the United States had been grouped into three circuits-Eastern, Middle, and Southern-in which circuit court was held by two justices of the Supreme Court (after 1793, by one justice) ' and the district judge of the district in which the court was sitting.5 The Act of 1801 grouped the districts t Assistant Professor of History, Wellesley College.
    [Show full text]
  • The Summer of 1787: Getting a Constitution
    BYU Studies Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 3 Article 6 7-1-1987 The Summer of 1787: Getting a Constitution J. D. Williams Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq Recommended Citation Williams, J. D. (1987) "The Summer of 1787: Getting a Constitution," BYU Studies Quarterly: Vol. 27 : Iss. 3 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol27/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Studies Quarterly by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Williams: The Summer of 1787: Getting a Constitution the summer of 1787 getting a constitution J D williams it is not at all certain that complex historical events really have beginnings but it is absolutely certain that all essays must and so we begin with my favorite living frenchman jean francois revel commenting on the revolution in eighteenth century america that revolution was in any case the only revolution ever to keep more promises than it broke 51 what made that possible in america was the constitution of the united states written eleven years after the declara- tion of independence and six years after our defeat of the british at yorktown on 17 september 1987 that document was two hundred years old and it is to that birthday and to all of us that this essay is fondly dedicated my intent here is threefold to recall how one american government the
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Civil Discourse: Lessons from the Constitutional Convention Susan M
    Restoring Civil Discourse: Lessons from the Constitutional Convention Susan M. Leeson homas Mann, Director of Governmental Studies at the Brookings Institution, observed several years ago that, “Democracy is a means of living together despite our differences. TDemocratic deliberation is an alternative to physical violence. It is predicated on the assumption that it’s possible to disagree agreeably....”1 Political commentators increasingly note the disintegration of agreeable disagreement in our democracy. In our public debates, in panel discussions on radio or television, in town hall meetings and community forums, in legislative chambers, on internet blogs, and even on college campuses, where free and candid exchanges of views are thought to be the norm, negativity and personal attacks abound. Issues are cast as deadly battles between opposing ideologies. All of us probably have experienced the challenge of remaining civil when we are discussing policy matters about which we are passionate. Acknowledging that incivility does not advance the cause of democracy is one thing. Finding constructive examples of civil debate over contentious issues is another. ______________ Constitution Day Lecture, September 12, 2005 Leeson 2006 13 One remarkable example of civil discourse is the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Many Americans view the United States Constitution with reverence. However, most are unaware that the four-month-long process of drafting the Constitution was arduous and anything but serene. The delegates to the convention were so deeply divided (morally, politically, and economically) on so many issues that the convention almost collapsed several times. With but a few exceptions, the delegates persevered. The story of the convention is filled with complex characters, motives, intrigues, and a plot that continues to affect our daily lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Writing a Constitution
    Page 1 Chapter 1 Writing a Constitution We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” o wrote Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, the renowned document penned and published in 1776 that officially proclaimed the independence of the colonies from Great Britain. SThese time-honored words reflect much about the colonists’ continuing struggle with King George III and Parliament. In the eyes of Jefferson and many others, the British government had failed to guarantee the colonists the rights they deserved. In declaring independence, Jefferson and his compatriots set out to free the colonies from oppressive overseas rule and establish governments that fulfilled the desires of the people and guaranteed them necessary rights. To that end, Jefferson proceeded to insist in the Declaration that each colony have the power to establish an independent government.” [A]s free and independent states,” he wrote, “[the former colonies] have full power to do all acts and things which independent states may of right do.” Having overthrown one government, the new nation immediately began creating fourteen new governments. As each colony assumed statehood, it appointed committees to draw up a state constitution in order to define and establish the duties, powers, and organization of the government. In the meantime, Independence Hall Congress appointed a committee to write a national constitution that would govern all these “free and independent states.” The Articles of Confederation Furthermore, the Articles of Confederation allowed for a different relationship between state governments and the national government than it does today.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional Convention by Brenda B
    The Constitutional Convention By Brenda B. Covert Cast of Characters in order of appearance NARRATOR #1 NARRATOR #2 (Note: narration can be divided among more students if necessary.) PATRICK HENRY: Patriot and Founding Father THOMAS JEFFERSON: Patriot and Founding Father GEORGE WASHINGTON: President of the Convention keeps a small ax at (Virginia) his side as if he had chopped down a cherry tree BEN FRANKLIN: 81-year-old inventor, wears large, old-fashioned (Pennsylvania) key on a ribbon around his neck JAMES MADISON: Note-taker, holds a quill at all times (Virginia) GEORGE MASON: Passionate about individual rights for the people (Virginia) RUFUS KING: Served on half the convention committees. A (Massachusetts) speaker on the floor. EDMUND RANDOLPH: Governor of Virginia. Presented the Virginia Plan (Virginia) LUTHER MARTIN: States’ rights advocate- gave a 2-day speech that (Maryland) exhausted his fellow delegates. Supported the Connecticut Compromise. ROGER SHERMAN: A devout Puritan- rigid, awkward, and honest- (Connecticut) proposed the Connecticut Compromise ALEXANDER HAMILTON: Supported a centralized government (New York) MARTHA: Old gossip ELIZABETH: Young gossip PREAMBLE: Recites the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution dressed in red, white, and blue Setting: a meeting room in the Philadelphia State House. Tables at stage left covered in green cloth. Large chair sits on a short platform stage right. It is George Washington’s chair. NARRATOR #1: After the Revolutionary War, the people of America had their independence, and they had the Articles of Confederation. Many felt that was all they needed. 1 NARRATOR #2: However, there were those who felt the Articles of Confederation weren’t working for the new nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Luther Martin, Maryland and the Constitution William L
    Maryland Law Review Volume 47 | Issue 1 Article 35 Luther Martin, Maryland and the Constitution William L. Reynolds II Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Legal History, Theory and Process Commons Recommended Citation William L. Reynolds II, Luther Martin, Maryland and the Constitution , 47 Md. L. Rev. 291 (1987) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol47/iss1/35 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Essay LUTHER MARTIN, MARYLAND AND THE CONSTITUTION WILLIAM L. REYNOLDS II* Luther Martin of Maryland served as delegate to the Philadel- phia Constitutional Convention, Attorney General of Maryland for a third of a century, advocate par excellence, and defender of Aaron Burr, Samuel Chase, as well as of the rich, the poor, and slaves. Gi- ants walked the earth in the early days of the Republic, particularly among those who practiced law: Marshall, Jay, Burr, and Hamilton among the founding fathers; Story, Johnson, Wirt, Pinkney, and Key a half-generation later; Taney, Clay, and the "god-like" Webster still later. Luther Martin richly earned his place among these men who helped define America. All but forgotten today,' Martin profoundly influenced early constitutional law. He played an important role in drafting the Con- stitution and then was a leading figure in the fight against its ratifica- tion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Framers' Intent: John Adams, His Era, and the Fourth Amendment†
    The Framers’ Intent: † John Adams, His Era, and the Fourth Amendment * THOMAS K. CLANCY INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 979 I. THE STRUCTURE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND ITS DISPUTED HISTORICAL MEANING ............................................................................................................... 982 II. JOHN ADAMS AND THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT: 1761 TO 1780 .......................... 989 A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................................................................. 989 B. JOHN ADAMS AND THE WRITS OF ASSISTANCE CASE ................................. 992 C. THE ENGLISH GENERAL WARRANT CASES .............................................. 979 D. JOHN ADAMS’S LIBRARY ....................................................................... 1012 E. ADAMS AS LITIGATOR AND OBSERVER .................................................. 1018 F. ADAMS AS DELEGATE TO THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS ....................... 1026 III. 1776 TO 1791: THE EVOLUTION OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROVISIONS ........ 1027 A. ARTICLE 14 AND OTHER EARLY SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROVISIONS ..... 1027 B. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1787 ....................................... 1029 C. THE CONFEDERATION CONGRESS .......................................................... 1030 D. THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION BY THE STATES ................... 1031 E. THE DRAFTING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ....................................... 1044 IV. ADAMS’S VIEWS AND INFLUENCE
    [Show full text]
  • Slavery and the Constitutional Convention
    CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION SIMULATION Slavery and the Constitutional Convention TIME AND GRADE LEVEL Two 45 or 50 minute class periods in a Grade 9-12 US history, civics, or government course. PURPOSE AND CRITICAL ENGAGEMENT QUESTIONS History is the chronicle of choices made by actors/agents/protagonists in specific contexts. This simulation places students at the Constitutional Convention and asks them to engage in the most problematic issue the framers faced: how to deal with slavery. Although most delegates believed slavery was deplorable, it was so deeply entrenched that any attempt to abolish it would likely keep several states from approving the proposed Constitution. By confronting this issue, students will experience for themselves the influence of socio-economic factors in the political arena, and they will see how political discourse is shaped by arguments based on morality, interest, and pragmatic considerations, often intertwined. Engaging students in the debates over slavery at the Convention provides teachers with an opportunity to highlight these aspects of argumentation; students emerge with tools for understanding the fundamental dynamics of all political arguments. LESSON OBJECTIVES *Students will be able to explain how the institution of slavery varied by region—not only differences between North and South, but also differences between the tobacco- growing Upper South and the rice-growing Lower South. *Students will be able to explain political obstacles to the abolition of slavery in the South and legal obstacles to the manumission of individual slaves. *Students will be able to explain the political interests that shaped the debate over counting slaves for purposes of representation. *Students will be able to state the origins of the “three-fifths compromise,” and how political positions reversed between 1783 and 1787.
    [Show full text]
  • Misunderstanding the Anti-Federalist Papers: the Dangers of Availability
    4 ZELINSKY 1067 - 1113 (DO NOT DELETE) 9/25/2012 1:19 PM MISUNDERSTANDING THE ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS: THE DANGERS OF AVAILABILITY Aaron Zelinsky* ABSTRACT In recent years, the Supreme Court’s use of the Federalist Papers has received much scholarly attention, but no analysis has focused on the Court’s use of Publius’ lesser-known sibling, the Anti-Federalist Papers. This Article undertakes the first systematic analysis of the Court’s use of the Anti-Federalist Papers and concludes that the Supreme Court has misused the Anti-Federalist Papers as a source of original meaning by treating all Anti-Federalist Papers alike when they are actually of differing historical value. Increasingly, the Court treats little-read Anti-Federalist Papers written by unknown authors identically to the widely reprinted writings of those Anti-Federalists present at the Constitutional Convention and prominent in the ratifying debates. The Court’s confusion of availability with authority is not unique to the Anti-Federalist Papers. Rather, this confusion represents an under- examined pitfall in the process of canon formation: the dangers of increased availability. In 1981, Herbert Storing published a “complete” volume of Anti-Federalist Papers, including many little-known Papers with relatively low historical impact. Almost immediately, members of the Court cited many of these marginal papers alongside the words of prominent founders, confusing contemporary availability for jurisprudential authority. Storing’s 1981 publication effectively served as a controlled experiment: documents which were uncirculated for two centuries were suddenly made widely available in a single volume. Studying the impact of the publication of these documents and the uses to which these documents were put provides insight into the larger challenges posed by increased availability in the modern era.
    [Show full text]
  • Marbury's Travail: Federalist Politics and William Marbury's Appointment As Justice of the Peace
    Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Law Faculty Articles and Essays Faculty Scholarship 1996 Marbury's Travail: Federalist Politics and William Marbury's Appointment as Justice of the Peace David F. Forte Cleveland State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/fac_articles Part of the Legal Biography Commons, Legal History Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Original Citation David F. Forte, Marbury's Travail: Federalist Politics and William Marbury's Appointment as Justice of the Peace, 45 Catholic University Law Review 349 (1996) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Articles and Essays by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 45 Cath. U. L. Rev. 349 1995-1996 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Fri Mar 16 14:37:55 2012 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0008-8390 ARTICLES MARBURY'S TRAVAIL: FEDERALIST POLITICS AND WILLIAM MARBURY'S APPOINTMENT AS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE* David F.
    [Show full text]