Looking through excerpts of anti-federalist arguments

Stick all your provocative and controversial topics here. Then stick them up your ass, you fascist Nazi!
Post Reply
annarborgator
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:48 pm

Looking through excerpts of anti-federalist arguments

Post by annarborgator »

Good stuff:
The... premises on which the new form of government is erected, declares a consolidation or union of all thirteen parts, or states, into one great whole, under the firm of the United States... But whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interests, morals, and politics in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can
never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed: this unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be like a house divided against itself...

From this picture, what can you promise yourself, on the score of consolidation of the United States into one government? Impracticability in the just exercise of it, your freedom insecure... you risk much, by indispensably placing trusts of the greatest magnitude, into the hands of individuals whose ambition for power, and aggrandizement, will oppress and grind you ­ where from the vast extent of your territory, and the complication of interests, the science of government will become intricate and perplexed, and too mysterious for you to understand and observe; and by which you are to be conducted into a monarchy, either limited or despotic...
http://www.pinzler.com/ushistory/argantfedsupp.html
I've never met a retarded person who wasn't smiling.
annarborgator
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:48 pm

Looking through excerpts of anti-federalist arguments

Post by annarborgator »

The "Federal Farmer" wrote:
The plan of government now proposed is evidently calculated totally to change, in time, our condition as a people. Instead of being thirteen republics, under a federal head, it is clearly designed to make us one consolidated government. . . . Whether such a change can ever be effected, in any manner; whether it can be effected without convulsions and civil wars; whether such a change will not totally destroy the liberties of this country – time only can determine.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance106.html
I've never met a retarded person who wasn't smiling.
annarborgator
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:48 pm

Looking through excerpts of anti-federalist arguments

Post by annarborgator »

From "John DeWitt":
Upon an attentive examination you can pronounce it nothing less, than a government which in a few years, will degenerate to a compleat Aristocracy, armed with powers unnecessary in any case to bestow, and which in its vortex swallows up every other Government upon the Continent. In short, my fellow-citizens, it can be said to be nothing less than a hasty stride to Universal Empire in this Western World, flattering, very flattering to young ambitious minds, but fatal to the liberties of the people.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance106.html
I've never met a retarded person who wasn't smiling.
annarborgator
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:48 pm

Looking through excerpts of anti-federalist arguments

Post by annarborgator »

And from the dissent published by the minority of anti-federalists in the Pennsylvania convention:

The powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron banded despotism, as nothing short of the supremacy of despotic sway could connect and govern these United States under one government.

The new government will not be a confederacy of states, as it ought, but one consolidated government, founded upon the destruction of the several governments of the states.

The legislative power vested in Congress by the foregoing recited sections, is so unlimited in its nature; may be so comprehensive and boundless its exercise, that this alone would be amply sufficient to annihilate the state governments, and swallow them up in the grand vortex of general empire.

The powers vested by this constitution in Congress, will effect a consolidation of the states under one government, which even the advocates of this constitution admit, could not be done without the sacrifice of all liberty.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance106.html
I've never met a retarded person who wasn't smiling.
annarborgator
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:48 pm

Looking through excerpts of anti-federalist arguments

Post by annarborgator »

Seems like they were right.
I've never met a retarded person who wasn't smiling.
annarborgator
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:48 pm

Looking through excerpts of anti-federalist arguments

Post by annarborgator »

From "Brutus" No.1:
In a free republic, although all laws are derived from the consent of the people, yet the people do not declare their consent by themselves in person, but by representatives, chosen by them, who are supposed to know the minds of their constituents, and to be possessed of integrity to declare this mind.

In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one. The former are ruled by the will of the whole, expressed in any manner they may agree upon; the latter by the will of one, or a few. If the people are to give their assent to the laws, by persons chosen and appointed by them, the manner of the choice and the number chosen, must be such, as to possess, be disposed, and consequently qualified to declare the sentiments of the people; for if they do not know, or are not disposed to speak the sentiments of the people, the people do not govern, but the sovereignty is in a few. Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people, without having it so numerous and unwieldly, as to be subject in great measure to the inconveniency of a democratic government.

The territory of the United States is of vast extent; it now contains near three millions of souls, and is capable of containing much more than ten times that number. Is it practicable for a country, so large and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a representation, that will speak their sentiments, without their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of transacting public business? It certainly is not.

In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good. If we apply this remark to the condition of the United States, we shall be convinced that it forbids that we should be one government. The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests, of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.

The laws cannot be executed in a republic, of an extent equal to that of the United States, with promptitude.
http://www.liberty-page.com/foundingdocs/antifedpap/brutus/1.html

And how much more diverse and complex are we as a nation now? Hmm.
I've never met a retarded person who wasn't smiling.
annarborgator
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:48 pm

Looking through excerpts of anti-federalist arguments

Post by annarborgator »

Wow, this is damn prescient:
In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the controul of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them. The trust committed to the executive offices, in a country of the extent of the United-States, must be various and of magnitude. The command of all the troops and navy of the republic, the appointment of officers, the power of pardoning offences, the collecting of all the public revenues, and the power of expending them, with a number of other powers, must be lodged and exercised in every state, in the hands of a few. When these are attended with great honor and emolument, as they always will be in large states, so as greatly to interest men to pursue them, and to be proper objects for ambitious and designing men, such men will be ever restless in their pursuit after them. They will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power.
Ibid
I've never met a retarded person who wasn't smiling.
DocZaius
Posts: 11417
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:41 am
Contact:

Looking through excerpts of anti-federalist arguments

Post by DocZaius »

The real concentration of federal power didn't really take effect until after the Civil War. The anti-federalists were indeed correct in the long run.
Image
Post Reply