
	Where results make sense

Topic: Antifederalists

In the News (Sat 25 May 13)

EXECUTIVE POWER

Iran

ANALYSIS

Pakistan

Family compact

	Article - Social Studies School Service
		In the Antifederalist definition of a federation (or confederation), the central government is only a creation of the states, who retain their sovereignty and independence of action.
		Antifederalists believed that state governments should have more powers and duties than the central government, because they are closer and more responsive to the people.
		Antifederalists criticized the Constitution, because it lacked a Bill of Rights to guarantee civil liberties of the people (freedom of speech and assembly, and so forth) against the powers of government officials.
	catalog.socialstudies.com /c/@jzWYBZowR.1no/Pages/article.html?article@SC100A1 (1719 words)

	Constitution Day: Reference Library
		Antifederalists generally agreed that there were problems with the existing Articles of Confederation that demanded solution, but they were not as likely to attribute the problems to the existing governmental structure as to the consequences of emerging from under colonial domination.
		Antifederalists were particularly focused on the argument that the French philosopher Charles Louis de Secondat de Montesquieu had advanced indicating that republican governments could not flourish over a large land area such as that which the Federalists anticipated would be under the control of the new government.
		The expression of many of the Antifederalists' concerns led to deeper understanding of the new government, but their most important contribution was their insistence on a bill of rights that would serve both to enforce limits on the new government and to educate the public in regard to their rights.
	www.constitution.abc-clio.com /ReferenceDisplay.aspx?entryid=1016539 (1262 words)

	The Antifederalists Were Right (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-08-03)
		Therefore, it merits remembering the Antifederalists' prescient arguments and how unfortunate is the virtual absence of modern Americans who share their concerns.
		One of the most insightful of the Antifederalists was Robert Yates, a New York judge who, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, withdrew because the convention was exceeding its instructions.
		See also " The Political Economy of the Antifederalists" by James Philbin, " Empire or Liberty: The Antifederalists and Foreign Policy" by Jonathan Marshall, " Live Free or Separate" by William Watkins, " Taxes and the General Welfare," by Gary Galles, and " Why the Bill of Rights," by Gary Galles.
	www.populistamerica.com /the_antifederalists_were_right (1028 words)

	Origins of the Second Amendment: The Creation of the Constitutional Rights of Militia and of Keeping and Bearing Arms. ...
		Antifederalists fears of the loss of the states were based on the axiom that sovereignty could not be divided; therefore, power granted to the federal government were permanently alienated from the states.
		Antifederalist arguments, regardless of their theoretical irrelevance, were based upon historical experience and estimates of the goals of the Federalists.
		Antifederalist proposals for militia and arming amendments to the Constitution and articles of the bill of rights reflect the entire range of their objections to the Constitution.
	www.potowmack.org /row11.html (6745 words)

	"We are to be reduced to the level of slaves": Planters, taxes, aristocrats, and Massachusetts ...
		Among Antifederalists' greatest concerns was to prevent the ruinous land and poll taxes that had led to Shays's Rebellion in the first place.
		In their speeches and writings, Antifederalists who denounced the "sectional advantages" granted to the southern states displayed a pronounced sensitivity to the class dimensions of taxation and representation.
		Antifederalists praised Massachusetts' Constitution of 1780 because it allowed the electorate to gain redress for their grievances.
	www.findarticles.com /p/articles/mi_qa3837/is_200307/ai_n9243005 (581 words)

	In the following short essay W
		These core Antifederalist views were tied to broader social and political views in which the Antifederalists defended, essentially, an open-ended democratic process as the only just form of political association.
		Antifederalists argued, however, that only a government organized so as to sustain the legitimate authority of that will could be just.
		Consequently, the practical effect, into the indefinite future that Antifederalists had to expect, was a dynamic politics that would merit variously praise as just and inclusive and criticism as unjust and exclusive.
	www.bsos.umd.edu /pegs/Winter_96/Allen_1.htm (2479 words)

	Jacob's Libertarian Press (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-08-03)
		Antifederalist Richard Henry Lee argued that in an extensive country it was impossible to represent the interests of all parts of the country.
		This potrayal of the Antifederalists is problematic, as the Antifederalists were a diverse group who were united in their desire for local governments but not in imposing a single religion on the people.
		The Antifederalists were communitarian and believed that groups of similar people would be the best to rule themselves, rather than being poorly represented from a government many miles away.
	www.geocities.com /libertarian_press/antifeds.html (1106 words)

	Essay: The U.S. Constitution (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-08-03)
		A Federalist might think the Constitution is the best document that could have been made, under the conditions of the time, to govern the U.S. The Articles of Confederation proved to be a near-failure; the central government under the Articles was too weak.
		Antifederalists were against the idea of a strong central government.
		The Antifederalists were either outvoted or joined the Federalists.
	www.byzantinecommunications.com /adamhoward/homework/highschool/constitution.html (265 words)

	National Park Service - Signers of the Constitution (Introduction)
		The Antifederalists were as a whole probably more democratic than the Federalists, but many of the leaders were members of the aristocracy and maintained reservations about democracy; ordinarily only the poorer and less sophisticated Antifederalists espoused it.
		The Antifederalists tended to defend the Articles of Confederation, though they felt they needed to be modified, or advocated a weak central government that would allow maximum participation of the people and insured State sovereignty.
		As a counter to Antifederalist charges that a federation would not work in such a huge country, the Federalists argued that the larger a federation was the less chance there would be that any of its members could dominate the others.
	www.cr.nps.gov /history/online_books/constitution/introh.htm (2814 words)

	Reconciled with the Genius of the People
		Antifederalists insisted that the more power the States had, the more the people were safe from tyranny.
		He made a subtle change in the workings of the two words themselves, undermining the Antifederalist aspect of the argument: he spoke of powers in terms of their origins, not their ends.
		This alteration made Antifederalists seem to be the tyrants, by wanting to delegate powers to themselves instead of directly to the people.
	galileo.spaceports.com /~notabene/madison.html (1211 words)

	WowEssays.com - U.S Constitution Ratification Debates
		The Antifederalists denounced the Constitution as a radically centralizing document that would destroy American liberty and betray the principles of the Revolution.
		The Antifederalists - led by Patrick Henry, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, James Monroe, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Elbridge Gerry, George Clinton, Willie Jones, and Melancton Smith - counted among their advantages the support of most state Ratification debates politicians and the American people's distrust of strong central government.
		Antifederalists had demanded that the Constitution be amended before they would Ratification debates consider it or that amendments be a condition of ratification; Federalists had retorted that it had to be accepted or rejected as it was.
	www.wowessays.com /dbase/ac4/aie285.shtml (861 words)

	Alexander Hamilton, AntiFederalists (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-08-03)
		Antifederalists believed in a strict interpretation of the constitution and a broad interpretation of Amendment Ten (the reserved clause-whatever powers that are not specifically enumerated to the national government belong to the state governments).
		They favored a balanced executive: one that is not dominated by the "aristocratic" senate, nor an executive that would evolved into a monarchy James Madison and Thomas Jefferson penned the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions which advocated the rights of the states to declare congressional acts null and void.
		Letters of a Federal Farmer, the most widely read Antifederalist pamphlet, listed the rights that should be protected: freedom of the press and of religion, the right to trial by jury, and guarantees against unreasonable search warrants.
	www.owlnet.rice.edu /~mwfriedm/terms/corinna6.html (1046 words)

	Amazon.de: Birth of the Bill of Rights: Encyclopedia of the Antifederalists [Two Volumes]: English Books: Jon L. Wakelyn (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-08-03)
		The Antifederalists lost the battle over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution of 1787, but their arguments helped to ensure the creation of the Bill of Rights.
		This set aims to highlight the significance of the Antifederalists "through a review of their careers, their political values, and their arguments against the Constitution." Author Wakelyn, a history professor, maintains that the encyclopedia represents "the largest and most comprehensive collection of data on the Antifederalists known to date."
		The documents are listed under each of the original 13 states "according to the first date when its ratification convention met," beginning with Pennsylvania and concluding with North Carolina.
	www.amazon.de /Birth-Bill-Rights-Encyclopedia-Antifederalists/dp/0313317399 (525 words)

	The U
		Some Antifederalists were upset that the Cosntitution lacked a religious test for officeholding.
		Others were concerned that the Cosntitution failed to guarantee a right to counsel and a right not to incriminate oneself in criminal trials, or to prohibit cruel and unusual punishments.
		They also argued that there were sufficient guarantees to ensure that the national government respect the boundaries of state authority and that individuals would be secure against federal encroachments.
	www.hfac.uh.edu /gl/usconst13.htm (300 words)

	Gordon Wood and Jack Rakove: Conflicting Views of the Constitution
		The Antifederalists believed nevertheless that whether lofty status was ascribed or earned, the natural elite could not be adequate representatives of a society that consisted of merchants, farmers, and planters.
		The Antifederalists raised a powerful enough argument to the extent that “ability, education, and wealth were becoming liabilities, not assets, in the attaining of public office.”
		Federalists believed the views of the Antifederalists were local views and had the hidden objective of protecting their state legislatures.
	workingpapers.org /students/wood_rakove_constitution.htm (2770 words)

	The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788, by Jackson Turner Main. Foreword. (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-08-03)
		This even applies to the term "Antifederalist." Main distinguished them by state and region, and elsewhere he showed an enduring interest in the economic and social distinctions that separated Americans within specific places.[22] Cornell shows that "elite" and "popular" Antifederalists had very different approaches to the problem that ratifying the Constitution presented.
		Cornell does not simply argue that Antifederalists were plebeian, and therefore "democratic." Many were not plebeian, just as many of the Constitution's supporters were not members of the elite.
		The real Antifederalist contribution to evolving American democracy was that by dissenting from the Constitution they kept open the public sphere of debate that the Revolution had made possible.
	uncpress.unc.edu /chapters/main_antifederalists.html (2518 words)

	Were the Anti-Federalists Wrong? Wayne Carlson - Sierra Times.com
		In reading the words of the Antifederalists we see that they feared that in seeking to correct the mistake of giving too much power to the State governments, under the Articles of Confederation, the "Federalists" were now making the same mistake by giving too much power to the Federal government.
		DeRosa noted that "The Antifederalists were convinced that it had been demonstrated, historically and theoretically, that free republican governments could extend over only a relatively small territory with a homogenous population and even among states this rule was evident, for the largest states were the worst governed."
		The first group, tending to side with the Antifederalists, felt that with the inclusion of a Bill of Rights there would be nothing to fear from the new government.
	www.sierratimes.com /archive/files/aug/07/carlson.htm (1034 words)

	[No title]
		Originally calling themselves "federalists," the antifederalists changed their name when their main opponents adopted "federalist" to describe themselves in the years after the American Revolution.
		Antifederalists favored relatively autonomous states, and opposed ratification of the Constitution of the United States in 1787-1788.
		While Federalists and Antifederalists differed on the need for a paper declaration, they were unified on the concept that an armed populace is necessary for a free state.
	www.lycos.com /info/federalists--united-states.html?page=3 (383 words)

	H-Net Review: R. B. Bernstein on Ratifying the Republic: Antifederalists and Federalists in Constitutional Time
		Antifederalist plans to shift to a fallback position of seeking to control the process of implementing the Constitution through the first federal elections and the workings of politics under the Constitution are only part of the story.
		Often, Antifederalist politicians and polemicists questioned the validity of the Constitution as a proposal under Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation, charging that the Federal Convention had exceeded its mandate from the Confederation Congress under its resolution of February 21, 1787.
		Ruling that the Constitution was a proposal validly before the convention, Pendleton declared that the Constitution's legitimacy as a proposal had been established by the Confederation Congress's acceptance of it in late 1787 and by the Virginia legislature's authorization of the elections for the ratifying convention.
	www.h-net.msu.edu /reviews/showrev.cgi?path=113531082937040 (1282 words)

	What's New on HistoricPelham.com?
		The broadside was part of the zealous debate between Federalists and Antifederalists that raged during the late 1780s.
		Antifederalists opposed ratification of the proposed U.S. Constitution in 1787-1788.
		The broadside was issued anonymously on March 4, 1788, signed by "A Federal Elector" and attacked the Antifederalists claiming that Westchester Antifederalists were duplicitously claiming to support one candidate while secretly planning to vote for Philip Pell.
	www.historicpelham.com /BlogArchive/Blog20060420.htm (418 words)

	From Revolution to Reconstruction: Outlines: American History (1994): Chapter Four: Ratification and the Bill of Rights ...
		In Virginia, the Antifederalists attacked the proposed new government by challenging the opening phrase of the Constitution: "We the People of the United States." Without using the individual state names in the Constitution, the delegates argued, the states would not retain their separate rights or powers.
		Virginia Antifederalists were led by Patrick Henry, who became the chief spokesman for back-country farmers who feared the powers of the new central government.
		Wavering delegates were persuaded by a proposal that the Virginia convention recommend a bill of rights, and Antifederalists joined with the Federalists to ratify the Constitution on June 25.
	odur.let.rug.nl /~usa/H/1994/ch4_p6.htm (675 words)

	Crossroads: Middle School Unit IV
		Federalists realized that they would need to involve the people and bypass Antifederalists who controlled many state legislatures if their Constitution was to survive.
		Antifederalists also favored having a ratification process because they felt they were "closer" to the people and could persuade the people to vote against the Constitution.
		When Antifederalists realized they were fighting a losing battle, they concentrated on approving the Constitution with recommended amendments.
	www.eduref.org /Virtual/Lessons/crossroads/sec4/Unit_4/Unit_IVQ5.html (1142 words)

	Antifederalists (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-08-03)
		The Antifederalists believed that many of the powers of the individual states would be taken away.
		Thomas Jefferson was not an Antifederalists, but he agreed with the need for a document that would protect the rights of the people.
		After the Bill of Rights was added, the Antifederalist states ratified the Constitution and it became the law of the land.
	www.personal.psu.edu /users/m/l/mlh343/antifederalist.htm (199 words)

	UW Oshkosh - Welcome
		OSHKOSH—From the Constitutional debate of the late 1700s to the contentious aftermath to passage of the USA Patriot Act in 2001, political debates in America have often related to the same issue: the extent of national power.
		Those lamenting the growing dominance of the upper class in government policy echo the antifederalists, said Siemers, who generally wanted government to reflect the wishes of average citizens.
		And it is a debate the antifederalists began.”
	www.uwosh.edu /news_bureau/releases/aug03/siemers.php (263 words)

	Chicago-Kent Law Review
		As they met with defeat in one state after another, the Antifederalists fell back to their secondary position of demanding amendments to alter the nature of the government.[7] Thus, in a number of the states, the defeated Antifederalists proposed amendments that they hoped would be added after ratification.
		Antifederalist leaders like Henry and Lee really wanted to defeat the Constitution and either go back to the old system or force a second convention where they could rewrite the document along the states' rights lines that interested them.
		The Antifederalists, especially the hard-core opponents of the Constitution led by Patrick Henry, did not want to modify the Constitution with a bill of rights so that it would be more palatable to the people; they wanted to totally undermine the Constitution or [Page 218] replace it with something else.
	www.saf.org /LawReviews/FinkelmanChicago.htm (11949 words)

	Chapter 2: Review
		The Antifederalists responded with essays from "Brutus" (Robert Yates) and "The Federal Farmer" (Richard Henry Lee).
		The Antifederalists argued that the nation was too large to effectively use a representative form of government, which was more suitable in small republics like the states.
		The Antifederalists feared that the Constitution did not go far enough in limiting the power of government and that, as a result, tyranny would inevitably occur.
	www.wwnorton.com /spitzer/ch2_review.htm (1045 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)