Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

The Antifederalist Legacy

Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 12:53:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
A general question to ask would be this: Were the anti-federalist claims (and predictions of the long term consequences of concentrated government power and so forth) correct? How have their predictions, indeed defense of the limited states' rights or assertion of such, been accurate and, in retrospect of the current and distant history of the United States, proven/justified?

I do not seek to really advocate anything but am interested in seeing how a glance back would afford some insight into the matter. The question of the thread is, essentially, were the Anti-Federalists correct when their claims, defense, ideology are measured with the occurrences of the past ("in retrospect").

This is also an indirect way for you to submit your own individual critiques of the Constitution and its current state.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 9:24:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, I supposed there would have been some answer....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 9:41:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 12:53:36 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
A general question to ask would be this: Were the anti-federalist claims (and predictions of the long term consequences of concentrated government power and so forth) correct? How have their predictions, indeed defense of the limited states' rights or assertion of such, been accurate and, in retrospect of the current and distant history of the United States, proven/justified?

I do not seek to really advocate anything but am interested in seeing how a glance back would afford some insight into the matter. The question of the thread is, essentially, were the Anti-Federalists correct when their claims, defense, ideology are measured with the occurrences of the past ("in retrospect").

This is also an indirect way for you to submit your own individual critiques of the Constitution and its current state.

They were obviously correct about the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 11:23:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 9:41:33 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:

They were obviously correct about the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

Well yes. I suppose I was asking about how their general outlook and criticism of the Constitution has fared in regards to its veracity as proved by time; whether the issues of unclear delegation of power or gradation between state and national levels, supposedly unfair representation, emphasis on central government, and in particular the degradation of the Constitution and so forth--have been shown to be verified or substantiated.

I do agree that it was obvious that the Bill of Rights was a benefit, considering the early Federalist opposition that enumerating an individual's rights reserved to others would limit it subsided once Madison himself recognized the cogency of the counter-argument. (The counter was not only the need to restrain the power of the government by virtue of the individual governments, but perhaps more importantly the need to legitimize the government).

Just to recount, but from my cursory knowledge, the Anti-Federalist harbored sympathies for the popular will or a preference for it to excessive central government, hence the criticism of the supposed unclear gradation between state and government power. I suppose from there came a wave of dissent and detraction that manifested in multiple arguments in response to Federalism; that is the subject that I at least ask to be scrutinized.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2012 1:41:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 11:23:21 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/22/2012 9:41:33 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:

They were obviously correct about the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

Well yes. I suppose I was asking about how their general outlook and criticism of the Constitution has fared in regards to its veracity as proved by time; whether the issues of unclear delegation of power or gradation between state and national levels, supposedly unfair representation, emphasis on central government, and in particular the degradation of the Constitution and so forth--have been shown to be verified or substantiated.

I do agree that it was obvious that the Bill of Rights was a benefit, considering the early Federalist opposition that enumerating an individual's rights reserved to others would limit it subsided once Madison himself recognized the cogency of the counter-argument. (The counter was not only the need to restrain the power of the government by virtue of the individual governments, but perhaps more importantly the need to legitimize the government).

Just to recount, but from my cursory knowledge, the Anti-Federalist harbored sympathies for the popular will or a preference for it to excessive central government, hence the criticism of the supposed unclear gradation between state and government power. I suppose from there came a wave of dissent and detraction that manifested in multiple arguments in response to Federalism; that is the subject that I at least ask to be scrutinized.

And a final question: does the fact that the Anti-Federalist was correct/had their criticism been legimitate justify, let alone vindicate, their opposition at a critical time where, as one Anti-Federalist himself admitted, critical weaknesses of the administration of federal and state powers?

And just to note, I'm just curious, lol.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau