The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (Signet Classics)

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.

So before there was the Constitution, there was a Confederation of States. Pretty much everybody was in support of A Constitution, as opposed to The Constitution. The Federalists strongly supported the Constitution as it was written. Those who felt additional protections were needed beyond those stated in the version debated at the first Constitution Convention and in the as-passed Constitution were perjoratively called Anti-Federalists and the term has stuck. It is very instructive how nearly all of the Anti-Federalist's concerns for lacking protections against usurpation of power from the people by the government have been proven fully justified by history. The Anti-Federalists were not some fringe group but contained the names of many noteworthy, outspoken, and scholarly founding fathers whose names are immediately recognizable to any grade school student.This book's information is well assembled: the introductory sections are well researched and the index is useful. Included articles, such as key speeches and letters, are aptly chosen. A slight drawback is that this is a signet style paperback: to reduce cost from textbook to commodity, this format has smaller page size, smaller font size, and lower paper quality. Those who regularly use reading glasses will find these factors makes no difference, other than perhaps the smaller margins affecting annotation space.This book is a necessary addition to the library of any even casually concerned civics minded person. To better understand the condition of this current United States and how we got here, this set of historical documents proves even more instructive than the Federalist Papers themselves, and it was such a recommendation from a civics instructor that put me on to this resource in the first place.

It is interesting, while reading this book, what the concerns of the founders and their contemporaries where when considering and ratifying the constitution. They recognized the concerns of corruption, ambitious men seeking power for themselves and expressed concerns about what this constitution might lead to. Chief amongst their concerns was that the Federal Government instituted under this constitution would eliminate the state governments and assume all power unto itself. While that hasn't happened yet, it is interesting how 223 years later how the federal government takes more and more upon itself the as the legislator and decider of how things will happen at the local level. Washington now decides what curriculum will be in our schools, how our children are to be taught and even what they will eat at lunch (breakfast and dinner in some places). They determine how our buildings are to be built, they decide all issues of health care policy, Federal Judges routinely knock down locally (city and state) ordinances and statutes and tell us we are not capable of governing ourselves. They are working on a one size fits all society. While we did relatively well with this constitution and the subsequent bill of rights for most of the preceding 223 years, it is almost as though many of the the worst fears of the anti-federalists of central government usurpation are coming true. To those who love big government and are always willing to trade some of their liberties and freedoms for more safety and security, this will all seem to be just a bit of falderal. To those who think that government best serves when it is local this will give them some pause.

Informative especially when combined with the sister edition of the Federalist papers and Constitutional Convention minutes. You see what the framers intended, not what someone tries to tell you they wanted.

Edited apparently by an obvious Federalist, you certainly don't get the anti-federalist viewpoint defended well.

Excellent.