The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates

by Ralph Louis Ketcham

The dissenting opinions of Patrick Henry and others who saw the Constitution as a threat to our hard-won rights and liberties.

Edited and introduced by Ralph Ketcham.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, American History, Classics, Law

480 pages, Paperback

First published October 7, 1986

About the author

A specialist in American constitutional and political theory in the early republic and a former editor of the papers of James Madison, Ralph Ketcham was Maxwell Professor of Citizenship and Public Affairs emeritus at Syracuse University. Ketcham attended the Coast Guard Academy, Allegheny College, and Colgate University before earning his doctorate in Ameican Studies from the Maxwell School in 1956. Prior to his appointment to Syracuse in 1963 Ketcham taught at the University of Chicago and Yale University, and he taught at Syracuse until his retirement in 1997.

Reviews

[Rebecca · Rating 5 out of 5]

After you read the federalist papers it is so mind blowing to read the counter arguments. Both are such a study in government and propaganda. Again, I would recommend reading these essays over any american history text book to anyone that wants to really understand our government. They are facinating.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Overall it is hit and miss. Ketcham gives a VERY detailed review of the Constitutional Convention (180 pages). If you have read The Federalist Papers then you can probably skip it. He does provide a fine annotated bibliography at the end (this is one of those things that separates good books from great ones).

Summarizing the Anti-Federalist Position

(1) It is agreed that the Articles were defective, but that does not logically prove that the new Constitution is good (Melancton Smith).

(2) The problem of representation: In any representative government, there must be a proportion between the size of the population and the ones representing that population. So far, that’s common sense. But when you have a large population, you must either have [1] a small representation, or [2] an extremely large representation. If [1], then you have oligarchy and tyranny. If [2], you have chaos. Therefore a third position is needed: [3] new republics. Republican government by necessity MUST remain small(ish).

(3) The problems in the country aren’t so much the fault of the confederation itself, but simply that the people haven’t yet fully recovered from the war (“Federal Farmer” 258).

(4) Further complicating the problem was that paper currency (and all its instabilities) was introduced during the war and the people were only now overcoming that debt system. And it bears noting that the Anti-Federalists were militantly anti-usury (Dewitt 191)..
(5) The constitutional convention was called in secrecy (238).

(6) A very extensive territory cannot be governed on the principles of freedom, otherwise than by a confederation of Republics (242).

(7) Intermediating structures have been negated. Congress has direct power over the purse to tax. Previously in agricultural and quasi-anarchist societies, the commune or district mediated the tax burden between the man and government.

(8) Since the number of representatives is so small, the ones who represent will always be part of the monied elite (e.g., Goldman Sachs, Koch brothers, etc).

(9) Interestingly enough, the anti-Federalists appear to reject the idea, quite republican in itself, of the Senate electing the president (252). They saw the president as always being buddies with the Senators.

(10) The power to tax directly is inversely proportionate to liberty. The anti-federalists predicted the rise of the IRS.

Conclusions and impressions:

The Federalist ideas aren’t wrong as long as you have a unified people sharing a common bond of love (cf Augustine, City of God, Bk. 19.24). And if it is a small area, then it should work. But since self-government is strained (if not impossible) over larger areas, then The Federalist becomes a manifesto for Empire.

As it stood the Anti-Federalist program, while godly and ensuring liberty, was inadequate. There really wasn’t a way to withstand a foreign invader (though to be fair, invading a forested, hill-country like America, protected by 2,000 miles of ocean, isn’t easy). What is needed is something like the Russian-CIS federation, where a collection of republics find their leadership and direction from a larger, stronger republic like Russia. Such a republic would respect the autonomy and culture of the smaller ones.

But that seems to point back towards the Anti-Federalists’ complaint: what is the difference between this situation and that of a larger republic like Virginia crowding out smaller ones? Admittedly, in 1787 there wasn’t a good answer to this. However, today, there might be one: Russia, to go back to that example, cannot survive an economic war with the West. However, smaller republics like Kazakhstan and larger countries like China can band together with Russia in an economic alliance that would counter any move the Atlanticists make. Russia, therefore, would have a vested interests in keeping the smaller republics strong and unique in order to form a counter to Atlantis.

The parallels are worth exploring.

[Tony · Rating 5 out of 5]

I enjoy this even more than the federalist papers, really interesting to anyone who cares about politics or the nature of political thought in this country. This is where it all started.

[brianna]

boring, but not as bad as the federalist papers

[Murray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kind of tough to read, but if you want to know what went wrong with the country, it's that these guys were right.

[Sean McGowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great.

[trivialchemy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would argue that the anti-Federalists' papers are more important than those of the Federalists. I predicate this on the belief that greater comprehension of the status quo comes through studying that which dissents from it.

Believe that or not, either way if you had a teacher who forced you to read the Federalist papers and not the anti-Federalist papers, he was most assuredly a fascist.

[Aloha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reasoning more emotional than logical compared to the Federalist Papers and considering what we know of the complex workings of the world today.

[Catherine · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Anti-Federalist Papers were written less in response to the Federalist arguments than I had anticipated. The true discussion was between the Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitution itself. The Anti-Federalist Papers were not less enjoyable a read for all that; in fact, they were impassioned, with moments of stunningly powerful rhetoric. Their downfall lay more in the repetition of or contradiction between the different arguments, the natural result of their not having been designed to be a cohesive whole, unlike the Federalist Papers. Moreover, most of their strongest points were obviated by the Bill of Rights, or have otherwise been addressed already. That being the case, my primary interest was historic rather than philosophic in nature.
The Constitutional Convention debates were a whole other matter though. I felt privileged to be able to hear both sides of every issue, to find out what the original suggestions for the union had been, and to see exactly what was compromised upon and for what reasons. Because this section of the book actually represented a conversation, I also got a better sense of the characters and motivations of the men themselves, thus allowing me to see past at least some of the accumulated prejudice of the 'founding fathers'...

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

This took a while to read but was very interesting. Though it felt repetitive at times (the idea that there wouldn't be enough representatives in the House to represent the states' populations was a common refrain) it was interesting how many of the objections brought up back then are still brought up today (like congressmen and senators having no term limits or objections about states rights).

Favorite quote:
"When the public is called to investigate and decide upon a question in which not only the present members of the community are deeply interested, but upon which the happiness and misery of generations yet unborn is in great measure suspended, the benevolent mind cannot help feeling itself peculiarly interested in the result (p 282)."

[Stevenson Joshua Hill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent. Academic. History debated and made. Get yourself educated please. Read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. There is a good reason we have the Constitution we have. It took years of study and months of public debate and a string of amendments to make it the greatest leadership roadmap in the history of the world.

[Sky · Rating 5 out of 5]

Long and tough read, but worth it. Excellent source into what the American founding fathers actually thought when forming the constitution. This book puts a lot of rumors to rest and sheds light on little known topics of debate that led to what we have today.

[John Yelverton · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful, classic rebuttal to the argument that the United States needed a Constitution. It was through the works of these arguments that the Bill of Rights was passed.

[Matt O'Dowd]

This was a nice read alongside the Federalist Papers.

I will say that the editing of the Signet Classics edition was frustrating in parts. There were apparent huge ommissions from anti-federalist texts in favor of pro-federalist texts (not sanctioned by the official Publius 1-85). I can see the value of these texts, but an Appendix to the Federalist Papers might have been more appropriate? Anyway, it is hard to judge without resarching the omitted documents separately. It can't be easy cutting down so much material into a cohesive and digestible text, so full credit to the editor for the effort.

Anyway, for those interested in the "other side," my personal favorites were Centinel No. I and Brutus No. IV.

[Marcos Augusto · Rating 4 out of 5]

A loose political coalition of popular politicians, such as Patrick Henry, who unsuccessfully opposed the strong central government envisioned in the U.S. Constitution of 1787 and whose agitations led to the addition of a Bill of Rights. The first in the long line of states’ rights advocates, they feared the authority of a single national government, upper-class dominance, inadequate separation of powers, and loss of immediate control over local affairs. The Anti-Federalists were strong in the key states of Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia.

[Ethan S.]

The title “The Anti-Federalist Papers” is a misnomer: when we hear “The Federalist Papers,” we know this specifically refers to the series of 85 essays written in an organized and coordinated manner by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay explaining and defending the system of government described in the new United States Constitution, and encouraging the ratification of the same. This has never been the case for “Anti-Federalist papers” because the writing and collection of Anti-Federalist was never coordinated, and never formalized. What we have today, in this book and similar like it, are collections of various Anti-Federalist writings—essays, letters, convention minutes, speeches—that have been retrospectively compiled by various editors and historians into volumes that they title “Anti-Federalist Papers.” Ralph Ketcham is one of these editors; I have no ability to judge whether Ketcham’s collection is any better or worse than other similar collections, only that it is comparable.

But the important point is that the writing of Anti-Federalist papers was not organized or coordinated, as were the Federalist Papers. There were many people across the country at once writing on the same topics; as a result, the volume of writings that have survived is enormous (supposedly complete and authoritative collections of Anti-Federalist writings extend to seven large volumes, a veritable encyclopedia compared to the two comparatively slender volumes of The Federalist Papers). But because these writings were not coordinated, inevitably there is much overlap and repetition across them. Indeed, even in Ketcham’s collection, which he carefully selected to counter the various major points in The Federalist Papers, there is a good amount of repetition amongst the various writers. But in a sense this is a good thing, as it helps to clarify what were the most important objections the Anti-Federalists had to the system of government described in the Constitution.

The Anti-Federalist writers are often very quotable; in this regard, they remind me of Tocqueville. The big-picture future the writers imagine resulting from a strong Federal government is striking because in many ways it is exactly how our government and our country have developed in the ensuing 230+ years (how horrified would they be at the current state of taxation in our country, or the size and strength of the U.S. military?). They are also quite effective when arguing from the sense that humans are by nature greedy and corrupt (something any person who espouses Socialist ideology should consider when they continually strive to take power and control from individuals and from private industries and put it all into the seat of government and politicians; both groups are corrupt, but “segregation of duties” provides significantly better protection for liberty).

The Anti-Federalist papers are at their weakest when explaining the specific ways in which the proposed federal government would result in the aforementioned dark future. This isn’t to say that they aren’t specific or detailed in their predictions. But on the one hand, some of their major objections have long ago been addressed (eg., the want of a Bill of Rights). And on the other hand, many of their specific arguments against the Constitution make all sorts of “slippery slope” and “ad baculum” fallacies, imagining a worst case scenario that has never materialized and likely never will (eg., the complete dissolution of the state governments, or the President leading the army to overthrow the legislature and judiciary and become a despotic tyrant). But anyone who has studied logic knows that a conclusion isn’t necessarily false because one of its premises is untrue, or the reasoning is flawed. We can see today that a number of the Anti-Federalist warnings have, indeed, materialized; at this point, we can only go back retrospectively and try to determine what premises caused the conclusion. I have to believe it’s partly due to the expansion of federal powers in the wake of the Civil War. How much different would this country be if the Civil War had never been fought—and the primary reason for fighting it had never existed!

Speaking of which, I had been led to believe in my formative years that there were parallels between the Anti-Federalists and the Southern States during the Civil War. I guess there were in the sense of governmental structure. But there’s a key difference: the Anti-Federalists were also anti-slavery, and criticized the original Constitution as ratified for allowing, and in ways promoting, that wicked institution. This would present a conundrum for Anti-Federalists, if they had been around during the Civil War: the South was rebelling against expansion of the federal government over the state governments, but in direct response to a fear of the removal of the institution of slavery. I think it’s certainly not the case that the Anti-Federalists would necessarily be on the side of the CSA, as I’d been led to believe as a child. It would be more of a complex dilemma than that.

One other surprising revelation was how opposed Alexander Hamilton was to the system of federal government proposed in the Constitution, as we can see from the proceedings of the Convention. We think of him as being such a champion of Constitution in his writings and as depicted in the Broadway show, but his original vision for the government was closely modelled on the system of British government at the time, with a President elected for life resembling the King, a Senate selected for life from among the wealthy upper class resembling the House of Lords, and the House of Representatives representing the House of Commons. But Hamilton knew that it was for the good of the country that a strong system of government be speedily adopted, hence his championing of the Constitution even though it opposed his vision for future of the country and the government.

I don’t think anyone left the Constitutional Convention thinking that the Constitution was perfect as it stood. Nor do I think that anyone thought the Articles of Confederation could be continued under without some sort of modification or amendment. A compromise was needed to be reached, and history will show that the compromise fell in the favor of the Federalists. I for one do believe adopting something along the lines of the Constitution was a necessity, although it certainly was imperfect; and unfortunately, in ways it continues to be, as partially forewarned by the Anti-Federalists.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it, but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
--Patrick Henry, June 5, 1788

[Alex Wheeler · Rating 3 out of 5]

Finally finally!!! Finishing this was my Christmas present to myself. Also a HUGE realization that I can’t put down a book once I start it. Full (or slow) speed ahead!
This was very interesting to hear the conversations that led to the final draft, but I found what was the very most interesting to me, was reading the last 8 pages with the amendments and their dates. Prohibition, removing the prohibition, ending slavery, women getting the right to vote, gosh it was all so great to read how we’ve evolved.
I read part of this last year while I was on a trip to Philadelphia and I just geeked out totally. Still...a very dry book to read only when not about to fall asleep.
Otherwise very thought provoking. Loved hearing how the constitution evolved to what it became and the reasons behind it...even hearing the reasons against it were actually very valid because I feel that we are at the point of some of the things they warned against. But then I wonder how it could have been done better...I don’t know that another way would have made things worse. This all just gets the mind going.

[Alex Brandstetter · Rating 4 out of 5]

I generally agree with Anti-Federalists less than the Federalists as someone who leans more in favor of federal power (though I've become a moderate on the issue of federalism). It's interesting to read the debates that happened in the lead-up to the ratification of the Constitution because there were many who strongly supported it, and many others who had genuine objections to it. The Articles of Confederation weren't sufficient to run a government like the United States because states had too much power, and it took away from the uniformity that was supposed to be the new (at the time) country the colonists had founded. States essentially acted as individual sovereigns: they had their own tax codes; in some cases, they created their own currencies that potentially couldn't be used in other states; they were essentially permitted to make deals with other countries that would have hindered the uniformity of those deals with the rest of the States; and they were in crippling debt that they had trouble getting themselves out of. To add insult to injury, whatever the "federal government" was was too constrained and weak to solve the problems of the day, and the threshold to make any change was too high. As a result, delegates of the several states decided to scrap the Articles in order to adopt the Constitution as we know it today.

But the Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution because they felt it had given the national government TOO much power. It established two new branches (the executive and judiciary) that did not exist under the Articles of Confederation, as under that, all federal power would be vested in the legislature. Even though there were some limits on the national government laid out in the Articles of the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists thought it necessary to include a Bill of Rights in the document because otherwise, the Federalists would've established a new tyranny after we had revolted against one. They were concerned that federal supremacy would threaten the independence of states; that the federal government would infringe on freedom of speech, religion, and the right to be tried by a jury; that the Congress was too small and distant that would allow for the elites to dominate and the working class voices to be underrepresented; that the presidency would become too powerful an office without sufficient checks to the point it would devolve into monarchy; that the Supreme Court would be too powerful and unaccountable with lifelong terms, vague powers, and the sole power to be the final say of the constitutionality of laws; and that unchecked taxation, standing armies, and loss of state militias would allow the government to oppress economically and militarily.

In practice, our form of government is a result of the moderation of the tension between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and cyclically, contemporary factions who align with them respectively try to tug the rope in their direction (in other words, we have periods of expanded federal power and expanded state power). We are a combination of a large republic (desired by the Feds) and 50 small republics (desired by the Anti-Feds). We have a federal government with vast powers and a strong bill of rights that limits the federal government and gives rights to states and individuals. We have a Congress that represents both popular sentiment (the House of Representatives) and a form of aristocracy (the Senate). We have a powerful standing army (the US Armed Forces) while also maintaining state militias (the US National Guard) that are only called upon by the federal government during times of war. We reserve the federal government's ability to make policy to those issues that have broad support and are general in nature: interstate and international commerce, foreign policy, national defense, coining money, establishing post offices, a central taxation regime (including tariffs, also known as "duties"), etc. The states hold authority on lots of activities in people's lives that the federal government doesn't touch: licensing, settling issues contested on the federal level but have more consensus on an individual state level, regulating economic activity within the individual state's borders, setting policies for schools, establishing state police and regulating local police, creating their own tax regimes separate from the national government, etc.

In some ways, too, the Anti-Federalist concerns were warranted. Most notably, the secular trend of the increased powers of the executive and judicial branches at the expense of the legislature. As a result, presidents have attempted to stretch the bounds of their authority to the point where they try to legislate from their office: entering military conflicts without a congressional declaration of war, canceling student loan debt, implementing a vast tariff regime, and cutting funding for federal programs unilaterally. The courts have set policy that could be as sweeping as legislation but without the full force of such: abortion was legal because of the Roe v. Wade precedent, and abortion legalization was limited because the precedent was overturned (both of which against popular sentiment at their respective times and without congressional action); before gay marriage was codified into federal law per the Respect for Marriage Act, it was precedent that made it legal (Obergefell v. Hodges), and the courts could overturn it on their whims if there were challenges to the ruling; the Supreme Court is also abusing the shadow docket to make rulings expeditiously. Perhaps the legislature will attempt to gain its power back as an existential matter because the executive and judiciary have become too powerful, but until that happens, the Anti-Federalist concerns are playing out in real time...

Overall, along with the Constitution, Articles of Confederation, and the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers are essential readings for understanding how our government works. You will come out of them being more skeptical of news that may be sensational and more able to correct inaccuracies that politicians try to say about different issues, and the correct procedures behind solving them.

[Aaron Crofut · Rating 2 out of 5]

This would make a decent book for a class, but otherwise you are better off just finding the complete anti-federalist works and Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention online. Both are definitely worth reading.

[Grace · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm very thankful for Hemingway.

[Talmadge Walker · Rating 5 out of 5]

A collection of various speeches and arguments that took place during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and the debates that occurred during the ratification process. Several things really struck a chord with me:
1) James Wilson of Pennsylvania had a much more assertive personality than he was portrayed as having in the musical 1776;
2) A common assumption among the debaters seemed to be that the Electoral College would often fail to provide a majority of votes to any single candidate for President, thus sending the choice to the Congress. As such, the Electoral College was meant to NOMINATE candidates for President rather than actually select them. (This was before the advent of political parties.) Viewed in this light, the EC is not really an important part of the electoral process, except to occasionally muddy the waters.
3) The two biggest fears of the opponents of the new Constitution were that it might bring about the elimination of the various state governments, and that it might enable the creation of a peacetime standing army.
4) Many viewed the lack of proportional representation in the Senate as anti-democratic, anti-republican, and practically scandalous. (Madison was appalled.) Many were also repulsed by the ban on prohibiting the slave trade, at least for 20 years, as well as the 3/5 clause which provided for extra representation for slave-owners. (The slaves of course could not vote, so they really had no representation whatsoever.)
5) A right to bear arms is mentioned in several places, but always in conjunction with the necessity for a militia to protect the states/communities. The only point in which an individual's right to bear arms is specifically mentioned (the minority report from the Pennsylvania ratification convention) goes on to qualify that right, allowing for the disarmament of persons "for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury..."

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

The new American republic struggled to devise a system of government that would work for the "average" citizen by creating checks and balances to each aspect of the federal system: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The Articles of Confederation was first. Using that as a starting point, the founding fathers argued both for and against a strong federal government. The Federalist Papers contain the arguments in favor, and the Anti-Federalist Papers contain the arguments against. After reading the Federalist Papers (and living under the system it advocated), I expected the Anti-Federalist Papers to be the equivalent of the unhinged diatribes of today's political conservatives. What surprised me was the quality of the arguments against the new Constitution, especially the views and expression of Melancton Smith, some of which would probably hold water even now. These were intelligent and well-educated people who had seriously considered how such a system would actually work in theory and practice, and what some of the potential pitfalls might be. Not all of their arguments are cogent today, but if you are interested in the history of the American republic and the way our federal government was conceived and carried into practice, this book is essential reading.

[Thomas S · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent material, largely quoted from James Madison's notes written as the debates were occurring. Puts into perspective some of the critical, delicate elements in the formation of a Senate, an Electoral College, and a Supreme Court. Strong participation by George Mason, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris, as well as by Madison himself, provides a much-expanded view of the Founding. Alexander Hamilton in particular stands out as a sort of "devil's advocate:" after saying he believes the Convention to be a foolhardy waste of time, he will then say, "however, if you insist on doing this, you would do better to choose X and not Y." There are numerous examples of quotable statements, pithy insights, and slyly skeptical warnings among these papers, but it is the overall perspective of the situation in 1786-87, which opens out into an amazingly prescient vista of future possibilities including conflicts and misbehaving, that can take away the reader's breath. These workaday minds -- plus a few brilliant ones -- well knew they were attempting something that had never before been sustained on this planet. Keeping that in mind, they rolled up their sleeves and did not give up on their audacious intent.

[Dennis Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates by Ralph Louis Ketcham is a very good introduction to and compilation of the the debates regarding the the adoption constitution. If there is a flaw to note here, it is that too little is given in the way of explanation, and the key content of these documents are not highlighted all too often. We are left more informed for information's sake, but we are left bereft of guiding stars for what, exactly, we are meant to take away. Sure, selection is and of itself an editorial comment, but that can only go so far. The convention debates were thus substantially more informative, as the chronological summations provided the reader with the necessary information to carry forward.

85/100

[Spacek Kim · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had read the Federalist Papers in the 1990's and thought this would be a good book to read to refresh myself on the constitutional convention. The portion of this book that addressed the convention was informative. I had a little disappointment with the lack of material on the papers the Anti-Federalists wrote. When I purchased the book I thought it would be similar to the Federalist Papers, the entire volume present. It was an informative read, based on what the presidential election of 2020 turned out to be. We will soon learn whether our government is becoming more federalist or whether the rule of law and respect of liberty through governing by consent is maintained.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

If the federalists papers represent what one scholar calls 'aristocratic republicanism,' then the anti-federalist represent 'democratic republicanism.' Distrusting the potential loss of freedom seen to be entailed by the federalist position, the anti-Federalists saw a consolidated federal government as a slippery slope toward aristocracy, at best, and monarchy, at worst. The relationship between federal and state authority is certainly one that still impacts us today so this is key reading of understanding the concerns attending this debate from the side of state rights in contradiction to federal.

[Alex Stephenson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I understand and validate that reading this is important context for the Federalist Papers, especially seeing as most of the writings here were created before the Federalist Papers were even conceived. That said, the writing is simply not as proficient in these works (comparing Madison and Hamilton to George Clinton - assuming he's responsible for some of these - is hardly fair), and the Anti-Federalist arguments tend to promote opposition while failing to offer solutions. So I don't find it hard to see why the cause didn't draw long-term support from the masses.

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really fascinating reading and a great companion to the Federalist Papers book I read immediately before reading this. I really enjoyed getting more insight into the constitutional convention debates and the arguments and concerns that some of the major Antifederalist writers had about the Constitution. Really valuable reading both for better understanding American History and also our system of government, politics, etc. This book was a valuable contribution to my self-education in becoming a better American citizen.

[Richard · Rating 5 out of 5]

I believe it's important to read both sides of any argument. The Anti-Federalists had real concerns over a Federal Government, and the issues they pushed for are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Melancton Smith in the end brought up some interesting thoughts such as term limits in the Senate. I would love to have term limits for both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and return power to state legislatures to appoint Senators.

[James R. · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Anti-Federalists Were Prophets!

Over and over the pro-republicanism, big government skeptics such as Melanchthon Smith of New York, made the case for liberty under God, not under all-powerful government. All of the then warned about the flaws of a national government—these have now all become freedom destroying social democratic mandates funded by unimaginable debt. History never repeats itself, but it sure buries timeless truth under new layers of lies and destruction.