The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates

Rating:
Summary: The political background of the birth of our Constitution
Review: I highly recommend "The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates" along with the companion volume "The Federalist Papers." Reading these two books will give you both sides of the arguments that revolved around the creation and adoption of our Constitutional government. "The Anit-Federalist Papers.." contains an excellent introduction by Ralph Ketcham, the complete Anti-Federalist papers and Constitutional Convention Debates with commentaries, an Index of Ideas, and cross-references to "The Federalist Papers."

The original intent of the Convention of States was to simply amend the Articles of Confederation, but instead it set out to frame an entirely new constitution. The Conventional debates began on May 29, 1787, in Philadelphia, with the "Virginia Plan" as the topic of the debates. This was James Madison's plan to strengthen the national government. However, not all our founding fathers wanted a centralized government. Statesmen such as Patrick Henry and John DeWitt argued for a decentralized government with a minimal central government. These men saw that the government as depicted in the Constitution would not represent the people adequately and that rights and liberties recently won from England would be lost.

This book is a must-read for anyone who wants to learn about the political thought which shaped our Constitution.

Rating:
Summary: The political background of the birth of our Constitution
Review: I highly recommend "The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates" along with the companion volume "The Federalist Papers." Reading these two books will give you both sides of the arguments that revolved around the creation and adoption of our Constitutional government. "The Anit-Federalist Papers.." contains an excellent introduction by Ralph Ketcham, the complete Anti-Federalist papers and Constitutional Convention Debates with commentaries, an Index of Ideas, and cross-references to "The Federalist Papers."

The original intent of the Convention of States was to simply amend the Articles of Confederation, but instead it set out to frame an entirely new constitution. The Conventional debates began on May 29, 1787, in Philadelphia, with the "Virginia Plan" as the topic of the debates. This was James Madison's plan to strengthen the national government. However, not all our founding fathers wanted a centralized government. Statesmen such as Patrick Henry and John DeWitt argued for a decentralized government with a minimal central government. These men saw that the government as depicted in the Constitution would not represent the people adequately and that rights and liberties recently won from England would be lost.

This book is a must-read for anyone who wants to learn about the political thought which shaped our Constitution.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful stuff
Review: Remember what happened to Tom Paine ? Crucial to the Revolution. Discovered corruption in Congress. Was hounded out of the country. They were wise to be worried. And so was the South. There is a stronger case for States Rights today than ever before. The European Union offers a model of a federation of sovereign states whose central government only controls common interests and doesn't interfere in direct taxation or local law, but by importing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (itself based on Paine's Rights of Man) into law it gives certain guarantees which have hardly been mentioned in the US (prisoners' rights for instance). Equally the Canadian constitution is a good model for a modern constitution (it includes the rights of women!). These guys could see the problems. How do we get our 'representatives' to see the problem ? By turning the US Constitution into a kind of holy document, we actually work against the ideas of the people who first conceived it. This book is an excellent one to give those 'constitutionalists' who would rather not think for themselves.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful stuff
Review: Remember what happened to Tom Paine ? Crucial to the Revolution. Discovered corruption in Congress. Was hounded out of the country. They were wise to be worried. And so was the South. There is a stronger case for States Rights today than ever before. The European Union offers a model of a federation of sovereign states whose central government only controls common interests and doesn't interfere in direct taxation or local law, but by importing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (itself based on Paine's Rights of Man) into law it gives certain guarantees which have hardly been mentioned in the US (prisoners' rights for instance). Equally the Canadian constitution is a good model for a modern constitution (it includes the rights of women!). These guys could see the problems. How do we get our 'representatives' to see the problem ? By turning the US Constitution into a kind of holy document, we actually work against the ideas of the people who first conceived it. This book is an excellent one to give those 'constitutionalists' who would rather not think for themselves.

Rating:
Summary: The Anti-Federalist Papers
Review: The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutuional Convention Debates edited by Ralph Ketcham is the counter to the Federalist Papers we know so much about. Yes, debate was strong as were the opinions expressed by the people between 1765 and 1787, as nothing was certain and the fledgling United States of America was going through dissenting opinions and concepts to ensure that the threats to the rights and liberties that were recently won from England were not thrown to the wind.

To get a better knowledge of what was going on at that time in our history we need to read about what was really going on and how was the political climate. Reading the "Federalist Papers" will not give you a complete picture, a good start, yes, but the concept of a strong central government was looked upon as an infringement of individual and states rights. The constitutions ws looked upon, by some, as a threat. Thus, this volume, of dissenting opinions, is valuable to balance the thought process.

Patrick Henry and John DeWitt are but two of these men who had a different concept of what a federal govenment should be, as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Madison was primary in the consept of compromise or composite, partly national is that some powers impinged directly on the people (taxing power) and partly national as the states acted as "units" of a central government. This early on would be the ground work for dual-sovereignty, but with carefully laid out laws.

This book cross-references to the "Federalist Paper" making his an excellent book for the novice reader. Also, there are complete texts of the Anti-Federalist papers and Constitutional Convention Debates complete with commentaries and an Index of Ideas making the olume invaluable to anyone interested in political thought in action. As political independence required new mode of thinking, the United States became a hotbed of political thought about government. Thus, the next step was national indetity and to accomplish this they had to have a national government acting as one, a union and confederated government. As the debate flurished, giving rise to pamphlets, newspaper articles and other writings on questions of a representative government, eventually a quest for freer and more democratic government persisted.

This book has quite a lot of informantion in it and along with other readings makes the reader better prepared to underdstand as to why things are as they are, with respect to the Constitution of the United States, the oldest still-in-use.

Rating:
Summary: The Anti-Federalist Papers
Review: The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutuional Convention Debates edited by Ralph Ketcham is the counter to the Federalist Papers we know so much about. Yes, debate was strong as were the opinions expressed by the people between 1765 and 1787, as nothing was certain and the fledgling United States of America was going through dissenting opinions and concepts to ensure that the threats to the rights and liberties that were recently won from England were not thrown to the wind.

To get a better knowledge of what was going on at that time in our history we need to read about what was really going on and how was the political climate. Reading the "Federalist Papers" will not give you a complete picture, a good start, yes, but the concept of a strong central government was looked upon as an infringement of individual and states rights. The constitutions ws looked upon, by some, as a threat. Thus, this volume, of dissenting opinions, is valuable to balance the thought process.

Patrick Henry and John DeWitt are but two of these men who had a different concept of what a federal govenment should be, as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Madison was primary in the consept of compromise or composite, partly national is that some powers impinged directly on the people (taxing power) and partly national as the states acted as "units" of a central government. This early on would be the ground work for dual-sovereignty, but with carefully laid out laws.

This book cross-references to the "Federalist Paper" making his an excellent book for the novice reader. Also, there are complete texts of the Anti-Federalist papers and Constitutional Convention Debates complete with commentaries and an Index of Ideas making the olume invaluable to anyone interested in political thought in action. As political independence required new mode of thinking, the United States became a hotbed of political thought about government. Thus, the next step was national indetity and to accomplish this they had to have a national government acting as one, a union and confederated government. As the debate flurished, giving rise to pamphlets, newspaper articles and other writings on questions of a representative government, eventually a quest for freer and more democratic government persisted.

This book has quite a lot of informantion in it and along with other readings makes the reader better prepared to underdstand as to why things are as they are, with respect to the Constitution of the United States, the oldest still-in-use.

Rating:
Summary: Biased edition
Review: The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers contain the arguments and debate that surrounded the creation of the federal government. The Federalist Papers argue for a strong, centralized federal government. The Anti-Federalist Papers argue for decentralized government, with only the minimal central government necessary - a confederation - to provide for the common interests of the States without becoming a monarchy or dictatorship. It's good to read both sides. Those who feel the U.S. federal government has become too big and too intrusive may be surprised to find themselves more aligned with the Anti-Federalist Papers.

However, I would not recommend this edition. The editor is clearly Federalist. For example, his bias can be found at the bottom of page 214, where he inserts the comment "[Here Mr. Henry strongly and pathetically expatiated on the probability of the President's enslaving America and the horrible consequences that must result.]" Strongly? Pathetically? Expatiated? These are pretty strong words, certainly not the words of an unbiased historian. The "Mr. Henry" he is referring to is Patrick Henry, one of our nation's greatest patriots. The comment is inserted in the middle of one of Patrick Henry's speeches. The editor's bias casts doubt on the analysis, comments, historical reference, and background information he has inserted throughout the book, ostensibly to provide a frame of reference for better understanding the actual documents. If the frame of reference is tilted, your understanding risks being tilted.

Read the Anti-Federalist papers, by all means. But get an edition with no bias, or a bias in favor of the anti-federalist viewpoint.

Rating:
Summary: Significant points to ponder about why we made Mistakes.
Review: The three most difficult books I have ever read, not because of content but just sheer intensity and repetitiveness were "The Politics of Bad Faith" by David Horowitz, the "Federalist Papers" by Jay, Madison and Hamilton and this book "The Anti-federalist Papers." Ketcham clearly gives us the basic facts on why numerous founders did not want to rush into ratification of the Newly Formed Constitution of the United States. In addition there is good justification why another convention to discuss these issues might have produced a better product and avoided numerous present day conflicts. But the time might also have been used to destroy the entire project and that would have been even a worse fate. Their fears were completely justified and warranted for their worst fears have actually come true. It is interesting that these wise men could foresee so fare into the future based only on a document that was being worked on at the time. I have often times pondered that the negative elements in our society, which to me are the fanatic liberals and the misguided progressive movement. Simply took all the fears of both the founding Federalist and the Founding anti-federalist and said hey let us join together to do all these wrong things and move off in this wrong direction that the others say is wrong with these documents and PESTO! You have the modern Democrat Party and all it's hypocrisy for us to observe and complain about. Just as foretold centuries ago. In any case the basics of the Anti-federalist can be summarized in a few statements. Here they are. 1. The plan is to disregard the States in Favor of an all-powerful single and central Government, which they did not believe, could effectively represent the people.

2. That this central government would attempt to make carbon copies of all Americans based upon some elitist, special interest monopoly or aristocratic group of self-serving social engineers. Effectively taking away their true liberty and freedoms guaranteed by stronger state governments.

3. That the Supreme Court would work tirelessly towards the end of taking power from the states and depositing it in the Federal Legislature and then in pulling it into it's own hands.

4. That the power to tax was the power to enslave and manipulate the masses.

5. That even though virtuous men would start out in these positions of power, deviant and corrupt men and women would end up their, through design, corruption, creed and a lust for power.

6. That in a large Republic with only one central government the welfare of the people will be given over to a thousand opinions, special interest corrupters and to insane partisanship.

7. That, once politicians gain power or the people's money. They will never give it back.

8. That once the people surrender their power and their money. They can never take it back.

9. Standing armies rob the people of freedom.

10. That the government as envisioned in the constitution would not ensure that the people get adequate representation.

These are the 10 most prominent I saw in this book, but of course there are more and although it is a sleep maker, the material in it is essential to a complete understanding of the Founding Era. In addition it is critical to any real Constitutional Scholar's Reading material. Recommend it for a long summer of exhaustive reading.

Rating:
Summary: Powerful and passionate prose that will inspire you!
Review: These often intense and firey speeches made by the Anti-Federalists or the detractors of the Constitution (as it was being written and then debated) are powerful, passionate and sharp enough to make one feel these words were meant to be weapons, i.e., the front line defense of the freedom and liberty we so easily take for granted today. I feel that much of what is wrong in our political system today was predicted here, and what would constitute the only real solution, i.e., active, democratic citizenship, is also demonstrated here in their willingness to fight against tyranny with reason and passion. How much greater our public debates would be today if this were required reading for all citizens! "Politics" would be thought well of again and refer to what citizens do in noble service to communities, close to home and far away. Do yourself a favor, get inspired again as to the original principles and purpose of democracy, read this book, and believe again! And do something!