10 ms·

The Anti-Federalist Papers

91 points by johntfella 6y ago

soheil 6y ago
Other than the Bill of Rights, which addressed some of the objections raised I wonder if there was an anti-Anti-Federalist Papers which in turn addressed those concerned more in depth.
- NobodyNada 6y ago
  You're looking for the Federalist Papers [0]. The first Federalist Papers were written as a response to the first Anti-Federalist Papers, and the two groups carried on the debate for months by continuing to write more counter-essays. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
  - verdverm 6y ago
    Both are important to understanding the constitution say the scholars. Federalists Audiobook: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIHnOi2zSTwPOrH3XAK5swr7 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIHnOi2zSTwP... Anti-federalists Audiobook: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIFTKMY_Cbc5ihEjWnpFhXsp https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIFTKMY_Cbc5... Federalist 1 - Introduction is so interesting to listen to in today's climate, good words for all to ponder on.
  - soheil 6y ago
    I always assumed Federalist Papers were primarily written as a way to argue for US Constitution not solely as a response to objections against it.
    - SllX 6y ago
      You don’t have to argue for something if no one is objecting. There was fear that the Constitutional Convention, originally called to amend the Articles of Confederation, maybe, and deal with some of the practical problems facing the Union, had gone too far in proposing an entirely new Constitution.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      Most of the papers themselves are structured as a series of "hypothetical" objections, each followed by a retort. The reason why I put that in quotes is that many of them weren't hypothetical to the intended audience. Sometimes it gets really funny, like in #54 (about the 3/5 Compromise), where the author clearly doesn't like the idea on its own all that much, and would prefer to not be seen as an ardent supporter of it - and thus, the retort itself is also written from a third person perspective: "... might one of our Southern brethren observe ... " etc.
SaberTail 6y ago
also worth a read is "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States" by Charles Beard which examines how the personal financial interests of the founding fathers shaped the constitution
- johntfella 6y ago
  Thanks for the suggestion. I'll add this to my list. I'm trying to justify purchasing The Complete Anti-Federalist by Herbert J. Storing on Google bookstore which costs $340. Seems pretty steep, however it looks like its the most authoritative source on the anti-federalist papers.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  Charles A Beard also did one on US history as well which was eye opening for myself. It's incredibly interesting how he dismantles a lot of our facade of a history into simple bourgeoisie economics. He makes everything modern conservative pundits preach in regards to the founding fathers as just pure lies. I mean look how fast the Anti-Federalists were stamped out! The revolution was purely a fabrication of rights stripped from the industrialist estates. The average worker wasn't as affected as much. But they were easily riled that's for sure. Everything in the early days of the US was just radical libertarians and aristocrats just seeking their own self interest. Since the majority of the US was still an agricultural economy based off of preceding thought surrounding Physiocracy, the system at the time was implemented far differently than it is today. Now it is on a full-scale industrialized level, but with a system devised for farmers, artisans, and aristocrats. The US system though will never change as long as it's the global hegemon. Much like the British Empire, Roman Empire, Qi Dynasty, and Holy Roman Empire; these major players never ended up reforming until their total collapse. As much as anybody hates to see it, that is the only way for this system to be revised. There is a big pie for many to take a piece of in the US. It's why there are minimal united for change.
- hajile 6y ago
  Beard's book is simply a proto-communist critique of the US government (in the form of the Realty vs the Personalty). Most of this book simply attempt to assert malice where other explanations are plentiful. For example, he asserts that the 3 branches were intended to make the country less of a democracy. Yes, the goal was a republic instead of a democracy because (as spelled out in the Federalist papers) pure democracies always wind up persecuting minorities (2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner) and all historical democracies up to that point fell apart rather quickly. Limiting the power of any one person or cabal was of prime importance. Beard rejects all these reasons as essentially true, but made up excuses (though history is not on his side). Instead, he claims it was to protect them from being overthrown by the masses. He asserts that the constitution was an economic document. Of course this is true. It was trying to convince 13 countries to become one, unified country. It tried to guarantee it wouldn't interfere with things in the Bill of Rights. Once the constitution has established that it can't butt into people's moral business, all that is left is economics. They set down rules to keep one state from oppressing another, rules for foreign commerce, and left internal issues to the states. Beard doesn't say how the rules could be better, he just asserts that because most of the writers had money, they must have had nefarious reasons for establishing those rules. Here's another example. The constitution says the US should pay it's debts. Beard asserts this is because Washington loaned money and wanted it back. Sure, this could be true, but it is also true that small, new countries guaranteeing to pay back money to lenders is paramount to securing loans in the first place. Realty were his creation that was anyone without large amounts of liquid assets (this included land owners). Personalty were people with liquid assets and manufacturing power. He claims the realty were entirely suppressed by the personalty during the constitution's creation. He doesn't provide much hard evidence aside from very generic things like he thinks it was hard to collect farmer's votes or opinion pieces in various newspapers that were anti-federalist. The federalists asserted that if the states didn't unite, they would slowly devolve into a bunch of little, squabbling countries that would be played against each other or outright conquered by the European powers. He has no answer. He claimed repression of the realty, but many of the county's most famous people rose from nothing. In fact, the upward mobility of the US has exceeded every other country since it's inception. This contradicts his claim, yet he has no answer. I would go so far as to say that he fails to justify any of his smears and that history both before and after 1913 has not been on his side.
ericbarrett 6y ago
I had not read these before, but they are fascinating. For instance, this powerful argument[0] against the Electoral College is still made, nearly verbatim, today. [0] http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/72.htm http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/...
- newacct583 6y ago
  Note that EC arguments swing both ways depending on the way the coalitions fall out. Right now is clearly a nadir, it's looking like Trump is going to lose the general electorate by 5 points but the tipping point state by only 0.6, which is just outrageous. But as recently as 2012 we had a (much smaller) skew in the opposite direction, and people tend to forget that. Or, consider a future where some combination of Texas/Georgia/Arizona do what Colorado and Virginia did over the last decade, complete their urbanization and turn hard blue. In that world, we'd be looking at a very large democratic advantage in the EC. Yeah, it's gotta be fixed. It just doesn't correspond well to the kind of population dynamics we have in the modern US. Nothing in the original constitution expected a country where both Wyoming and California could be a single "state". Call your reps and ask for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > Note that EC arguments swing both ways depending on the way the coalitions fall out. The argument today says nothing about Democrats or Republicans, it just says the president should be whoever gets the most votes nationwide. So I don’t see how it “swings” both ways.
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      Arguments for it are often very coincidentally made by whoever's party benefits from the current skew.
      - 6y ago
crazygringo 6y ago
This is fascinating -- I've studied a great deal of political philosophy and never heard of them. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist_Papers Which concludes: > The Anti-Federalists proved unable to stop the ratification of the US Constitution, which took effect in 1789. Since then, the essays they wrote have largely fallen into obscurity. Unlike, for example, The Federalist No. 10 written by James Madison, none of their works are mainstays in college curricula or court rulings. The influence of their writing, however, can be seen to this day – particularly in the nature and shape of the United States Bill of Rights.
- SllX 6y ago
  Check out National Review’s Constitutionally Speaking podcast. Ostensibly still being published, it’s already finished a thorough walkthrough of the why and how of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Ratification debates. If I recall correctly, the main body of the podcast is finished before episode 50.
salawat 6y ago
I would advise looking up the Federalist Papers via the the Library of Congress. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
alanbernstein 6y ago
I recently tried reading some of the Federalist Papers, but found the writing style too opaque for a casual read (perhaps some of the other authors' are more accessible, but then, Hamilton did write most of them). Can anyone recommend some kind of annotated version that's more accessible to a modern reader? These Anti-Federalist Papers seem a bit more accessible, but part of my interest is in understanding the motivation of the writing of the constitution, and it seems there is no better source for that than the Federalist Papers.
- SllX 6y ago
  The best source is the Constitution, and second to that are Supreme Court rulings. Madison came to the convention with the meat of what would become the Constitution, but the actual language was shaped and clarified by committee. Most of the Federalist papers are the product of Madison and Hamilton, and those are raw, but they are arguments in defense. Given how many were written by Hamilton who had less participation and less effect, I would argue they’re useful arguments for the why of the Constitution, but not the best means of interpreting it. I don’t have any annotated versions of the Federalist Papers I can recommend, but The Heritage Foundation has one of the better web annotations of the Constitution[1]. Scroll through and you’ll find various clauses accompanied with full essays in the little “i” icons. What you may also find helpful is context for the why and the how of the Constitution, as in why did the Articles of Confederation need to be replaced and how did the Constitutional Convention decide to replace them and how they went about replacing them. National Review hosts Constitutionally Speaking[2], and the hosts of the show keep trying to bring it back in various ways but they finished with what they initially promised by the end of Episode 41. [1] https://www.heritage.org/constitution/ https://www.heritage.org/constitution/ [2] https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/constitutionally-speaking/ https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/constitutionally-spe...
- sudosteph 6y ago
  I have a copy of "the federalist papers in modern english - indexed for modern political issues" that I used as a companion reference when I first bought the Federalist Papers. It was good for looking up which essays were relevant to my interests, but personally I felt that my comprehension suffered from being a step removed from the primary source when I used the "Modern Language" version. I think there's a lot to be said for having access to the subtlety and tone from the author, even if it takes some time to adjust to the language. The upside is that if you get used to reading texts from this era, other writers of the time period become more accessible as well. For example, I recently read many of the sermons of Jon Wesley and found them to be an easier read than I was expecting, perhaps due to my exposure to the federalist papers and others.
WoodenChair 6y ago
I’m surprised by how many people in this thread (and I assume a good portion are American) are unfamiliar with the existence of these. I knew our social studies education sucked in the US but I didn’t know it was that bad. The arguments of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers (and therefore their existence) is supposed to be taught in a middle school level history class in a unit on the formation of the republic after the revolution. At least it was in mine and I can’t understand why it wouldn’t be in others since it’s at the core of the debate around the passage of the constitution and then shortly thereafter passage of the Bill of Rights. The two sets of papers also reflect on issues people had with The Articles of Confederation.
- jcims 6y ago
  I was in middle school in the 80’s and found history to be excruciatingly boring. I don’t think any of it stuck because I just didn’t care, it was just a bunch of adults adulting and I had no understanding. It wasn’t until I was in high school that I had any appreciation for the human side of it all and how it was so much more than things that happened before I was born. So, to be fair, it’s entirely possible this was part of our education and I just reserved zero synapses to its retention.
- mjn 6y ago
  I recall discussing in school the Federalist Papers, and in general that the authors of those papers had opponents. I believe in particular some essays by Brutus arguing for a bill of rights were emphasized. What wasn't really mentioned in my school, at least, is a specific body of work called "The Anti-Federalist Papers". That might be because the collection and name is of fairly recent origin, dating only to the 1960s. The essays themselves are of course much older, but collecting them into a numbered series of essays mirroring the way the Federalist Papers are numbered is more recent.
  - arminiusreturns 6y ago
    On the same topic, it wasn't till searching on my own I found out about the arguments against the bill of rights. Namely, and I find this quite compelling but still don't know where I stand on it, that by formulating a list of rights that were protected, the government would then default to assuming those not listed weren't protected, which is anathema to the foundational idea of unalienable rights in the first place. In general I think one of the things I learned from this and other similar why didn't the education system teach this is that there is a marked lack of analysis of opposing viewpoints in times of history in the current education system.
sudosteph 6y ago
I keep both the federalist papers, and the antifederalist papers on my bookshelf. I bought them when Trump was elected because I wanted to see whether the founders thought that there was something in the system that would protect us if a morally bankrupt person took hold the executive branch. Unfortunately, many of the federalists thought we could obviously prevent that from happening, while many of the antifederalists thought that tyrants would become the norm immediately. They're a fun to flip through, as some of the predictions almost read like alternate history fictions, because they're just so wild. One essay I found particularly amusing (wish I could remember which paper said it), argued that the complexity of the legislative branch was clearly intended to to create endless demand for lawyers, thus ensuring that the lawyer career path would be prestigious and well-paid forever.
- watwut 6y ago
  Well, there is endless demand for lawyers, largely because the law and precedences are endlessly complex. But afaik, it is not such a great well paid career now.
nabla9 6y ago
As a non-American it always surprises me how much American's look for the past for guidance in the democracy and government. America was one of the first modern democracies, and people who wrote the constitution were the bleeding edge. All that was a long time ago and things have evolved. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Jan. 30, 2012: >You should certainly be aided by all the constitution writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa — that was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recently than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. So, yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?
- DudeInBasement 6y ago
  America has never been a democracy. It amazes me that people think we are smarter now, than we were then. We are just surrounded with technology.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    We don't have to be smarter to learn from historical stuff that happened. My IQ doesn't go up any when I burn myself on a hot stove, but I certainly learn something.
- amalcon 6y ago
  The way these things are taught in history class is pretty weird, and goes a long way toward explaining this. The Connecticut Compromise is a great example. You're taught that the large states wanted representation in proportion to population, and the small states wanted states to be represented identically (regardless of population), for obvious reasons. So, they decided to split the difference, making one house proportional and the other population-independent. While they did this because it was the only thing they could get agreement on, it was also the greatest civic invention since democracy itself... by coincidence, I guess? Yeah, it's pretty weird.
CalChris 6y ago
Interest in the Anti-Federalist papers is a recent phenomenon. In the 19th century one of their rare cites was in the Dred Scott decision, their second of the century. There were only five cites and no quotes for the entire 19th century. They were rarely cited until the 1960s. "From 1900 to 1959, the Court cited the Anti-Federalist Papers approximately once per decade." [1] The Anti-Federalist papers are only interesting if you want to re-litigate federalism vs 'states rights'. [1] https://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2063/Issue%205/4%20Zelinsky%201067%20-%201113.pdf https://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2063/Issue%205...

91 points by johntfella 6y ago

Other than the Bill of Rights, which addressed some of the objections raised I wonder if there was an anti-Anti-Federalist Papers which in turn addressed those concerned more in depth.

NobodyNada 6y ago
You're looking for the Federalist Papers [0]. The first Federalist Papers were written as a response to the first Anti-Federalist Papers, and the two groups carried on the debate for months by continuing to write more counter-essays. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
- verdverm 6y ago
  Both are important to understanding the constitution say the scholars. Federalists Audiobook: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIHnOi2zSTwPOrH3XAK5swr7 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIHnOi2zSTwP... Anti-federalists Audiobook: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIFTKMY_Cbc5ihEjWnpFhXsp https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SD8nzsQzIFTKMY_Cbc5... Federalist 1 - Introduction is so interesting to listen to in today's climate, good words for all to ponder on.
- soheil 6y ago
  I always assumed Federalist Papers were primarily written as a way to argue for US Constitution not solely as a response to objections against it.
  - SllX 6y ago
    You don’t have to argue for something if no one is objecting. There was fear that the Constitutional Convention, originally called to amend the Articles of Confederation, maybe, and deal with some of the practical problems facing the Union, had gone too far in proposing an entirely new Constitution.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    Most of the papers themselves are structured as a series of "hypothetical" objections, each followed by a retort. The reason why I put that in quotes is that many of them weren't hypothetical to the intended audience. Sometimes it gets really funny, like in #54 (about the 3/5 Compromise), where the author clearly doesn't like the idea on its own all that much, and would prefer to not be seen as an ardent supporter of it - and thus, the retort itself is also written from a third person perspective: "... might one of our Southern brethren observe ... " etc.

SaberTail 6y ago

also worth a read is "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States" by Charles Beard which examines how the personal financial interests of the founding fathers shaped the constitution

johntfella 6y ago
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll add this to my list. I'm trying to justify purchasing The Complete Anti-Federalist by Herbert J. Storing on Google bookstore which costs $340. Seems pretty steep, however it looks like its the most authoritative source on the anti-federalist papers.
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
Charles A Beard also did one on US history as well which was eye opening for myself. It's incredibly interesting how he dismantles a lot of our facade of a history into simple bourgeoisie economics. He makes everything modern conservative pundits preach in regards to the founding fathers as just pure lies. I mean look how fast the Anti-Federalists were stamped out! The revolution was purely a fabrication of rights stripped from the industrialist estates. The average worker wasn't as affected as much. But they were easily riled that's for sure. Everything in the early days of the US was just radical libertarians and aristocrats just seeking their own self interest. Since the majority of the US was still an agricultural economy based off of preceding thought surrounding Physiocracy, the system at the time was implemented far differently than it is today. Now it is on a full-scale industrialized level, but with a system devised for farmers, artisans, and aristocrats. The US system though will never change as long as it's the global hegemon. Much like the British Empire, Roman Empire, Qi Dynasty, and Holy Roman Empire; these major players never ended up reforming until their total collapse. As much as anybody hates to see it, that is the only way for this system to be revised. There is a big pie for many to take a piece of in the US. It's why there are minimal united for change.
hajile 6y ago
Beard's book is simply a proto-communist critique of the US government (in the form of the Realty vs the Personalty). Most of this book simply attempt to assert malice where other explanations are plentiful. For example, he asserts that the 3 branches were intended to make the country less of a democracy. Yes, the goal was a republic instead of a democracy because (as spelled out in the Federalist papers) pure democracies always wind up persecuting minorities (2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner) and all historical democracies up to that point fell apart rather quickly. Limiting the power of any one person or cabal was of prime importance. Beard rejects all these reasons as essentially true, but made up excuses (though history is not on his side). Instead, he claims it was to protect them from being overthrown by the masses. He asserts that the constitution was an economic document. Of course this is true. It was trying to convince 13 countries to become one, unified country. It tried to guarantee it wouldn't interfere with things in the Bill of Rights. Once the constitution has established that it can't butt into people's moral business, all that is left is economics. They set down rules to keep one state from oppressing another, rules for foreign commerce, and left internal issues to the states. Beard doesn't say how the rules could be better, he just asserts that because most of the writers had money, they must have had nefarious reasons for establishing those rules. Here's another example. The constitution says the US should pay it's debts. Beard asserts this is because Washington loaned money and wanted it back. Sure, this could be true, but it is also true that small, new countries guaranteeing to pay back money to lenders is paramount to securing loans in the first place. Realty were his creation that was anyone without large amounts of liquid assets (this included land owners). Personalty were people with liquid assets and manufacturing power. He claims the realty were entirely suppressed by the personalty during the constitution's creation. He doesn't provide much hard evidence aside from very generic things like he thinks it was hard to collect farmer's votes or opinion pieces in various newspapers that were anti-federalist. The federalists asserted that if the states didn't unite, they would slowly devolve into a bunch of little, squabbling countries that would be played against each other or outright conquered by the European powers. He has no answer. He claimed repression of the realty, but many of the county's most famous people rose from nothing. In fact, the upward mobility of the US has exceeded every other country since it's inception. This contradicts his claim, yet he has no answer. I would go so far as to say that he fails to justify any of his smears and that history both before and after 1913 has not been on his side.

ericbarrett 6y ago

I had not read these before, but they are fascinating. For instance, this powerful argument[0] against the Electoral College is still made, nearly verbatim, today. [0] http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/72.htm http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/...

newacct583 6y ago
Note that EC arguments swing both ways depending on the way the coalitions fall out. Right now is clearly a nadir, it's looking like Trump is going to lose the general electorate by 5 points but the tipping point state by only 0.6, which is just outrageous. But as recently as 2012 we had a (much smaller) skew in the opposite direction, and people tend to forget that. Or, consider a future where some combination of Texas/Georgia/Arizona do what Colorado and Virginia did over the last decade, complete their urbanization and turn hard blue. In that world, we'd be looking at a very large democratic advantage in the EC. Yeah, it's gotta be fixed. It just doesn't correspond well to the kind of population dynamics we have in the modern US. Nothing in the original constitution expected a country where both Wyoming and California could be a single "state". Call your reps and ask for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > Note that EC arguments swing both ways depending on the way the coalitions fall out. The argument today says nothing about Democrats or Republicans, it just says the president should be whoever gets the most votes nationwide. So I don’t see how it “swings” both ways.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    Arguments for it are often very coincidentally made by whoever's party benefits from the current skew.
    - 6y ago

crazygringo 6y ago

This is fascinating -- I've studied a great deal of political philosophy and never heard of them. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist_Papers Which concludes: > The Anti-Federalists proved unable to stop the ratification of the US Constitution, which took effect in 1789. Since then, the essays they wrote have largely fallen into obscurity. Unlike, for example, The Federalist No. 10 written by James Madison, none of their works are mainstays in college curricula or court rulings. The influence of their writing, however, can be seen to this day – particularly in the nature and shape of the United States Bill of Rights.

SllX 6y ago
Check out National Review’s Constitutionally Speaking podcast. Ostensibly still being published, it’s already finished a thorough walkthrough of the why and how of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Ratification debates. If I recall correctly, the main body of the podcast is finished before episode 50.

salawat 6y ago

I would advise looking up the Federalist Papers via the the Library of Congress. https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text

alanbernstein 6y ago

I recently tried reading some of the Federalist Papers, but found the writing style too opaque for a casual read (perhaps some of the other authors' are more accessible, but then, Hamilton did write most of them). Can anyone recommend some kind of annotated version that's more accessible to a modern reader? These Anti-Federalist Papers seem a bit more accessible, but part of my interest is in understanding the motivation of the writing of the constitution, and it seems there is no better source for that than the Federalist Papers.

SllX 6y ago
The best source is the Constitution, and second to that are Supreme Court rulings. Madison came to the convention with the meat of what would become the Constitution, but the actual language was shaped and clarified by committee. Most of the Federalist papers are the product of Madison and Hamilton, and those are raw, but they are arguments in defense. Given how many were written by Hamilton who had less participation and less effect, I would argue they’re useful arguments for the why of the Constitution, but not the best means of interpreting it. I don’t have any annotated versions of the Federalist Papers I can recommend, but The Heritage Foundation has one of the better web annotations of the Constitution[1]. Scroll through and you’ll find various clauses accompanied with full essays in the little “i” icons. What you may also find helpful is context for the why and the how of the Constitution, as in why did the Articles of Confederation need to be replaced and how did the Constitutional Convention decide to replace them and how they went about replacing them. National Review hosts Constitutionally Speaking[2], and the hosts of the show keep trying to bring it back in various ways but they finished with what they initially promised by the end of Episode 41. [1] https://www.heritage.org/constitution/ https://www.heritage.org/constitution/ [2] https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/constitutionally-speaking/ https://www.nationalreview.com/podcasts/constitutionally-spe...
sudosteph 6y ago
I have a copy of "the federalist papers in modern english - indexed for modern political issues" that I used as a companion reference when I first bought the Federalist Papers. It was good for looking up which essays were relevant to my interests, but personally I felt that my comprehension suffered from being a step removed from the primary source when I used the "Modern Language" version. I think there's a lot to be said for having access to the subtlety and tone from the author, even if it takes some time to adjust to the language. The upside is that if you get used to reading texts from this era, other writers of the time period become more accessible as well. For example, I recently read many of the sermons of Jon Wesley and found them to be an easier read than I was expecting, perhaps due to my exposure to the federalist papers and others.

WoodenChair 6y ago

I’m surprised by how many people in this thread (and I assume a good portion are American) are unfamiliar with the existence of these. I knew our social studies education sucked in the US but I didn’t know it was that bad. The arguments of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers (and therefore their existence) is supposed to be taught in a middle school level history class in a unit on the formation of the republic after the revolution. At least it was in mine and I can’t understand why it wouldn’t be in others since it’s at the core of the debate around the passage of the constitution and then shortly thereafter passage of the Bill of Rights. The two sets of papers also reflect on issues people had with The Articles of Confederation.

jcims 6y ago
I was in middle school in the 80’s and found history to be excruciatingly boring. I don’t think any of it stuck because I just didn’t care, it was just a bunch of adults adulting and I had no understanding. It wasn’t until I was in high school that I had any appreciation for the human side of it all and how it was so much more than things that happened before I was born. So, to be fair, it’s entirely possible this was part of our education and I just reserved zero synapses to its retention.
mjn 6y ago
I recall discussing in school the Federalist Papers, and in general that the authors of those papers had opponents. I believe in particular some essays by Brutus arguing for a bill of rights were emphasized. What wasn't really mentioned in my school, at least, is a specific body of work called "The Anti-Federalist Papers". That might be because the collection and name is of fairly recent origin, dating only to the 1960s. The essays themselves are of course much older, but collecting them into a numbered series of essays mirroring the way the Federalist Papers are numbered is more recent.
- arminiusreturns 6y ago
  On the same topic, it wasn't till searching on my own I found out about the arguments against the bill of rights. Namely, and I find this quite compelling but still don't know where I stand on it, that by formulating a list of rights that were protected, the government would then default to assuming those not listed weren't protected, which is anathema to the foundational idea of unalienable rights in the first place. In general I think one of the things I learned from this and other similar why didn't the education system teach this is that there is a marked lack of analysis of opposing viewpoints in times of history in the current education system.

sudosteph 6y ago

I keep both the federalist papers, and the antifederalist papers on my bookshelf. I bought them when Trump was elected because I wanted to see whether the founders thought that there was something in the system that would protect us if a morally bankrupt person took hold the executive branch. Unfortunately, many of the federalists thought we could obviously prevent that from happening, while many of the antifederalists thought that tyrants would become the norm immediately. They're a fun to flip through, as some of the predictions almost read like alternate history fictions, because they're just so wild. One essay I found particularly amusing (wish I could remember which paper said it), argued that the complexity of the legislative branch was clearly intended to to create endless demand for lawyers, thus ensuring that the lawyer career path would be prestigious and well-paid forever.

watwut 6y ago
Well, there is endless demand for lawyers, largely because the law and precedences are endlessly complex. But afaik, it is not such a great well paid career now.

nabla9 6y ago

As a non-American it always surprises me how much American's look for the past for guidance in the democracy and government. America was one of the first modern democracies, and people who wrote the constitution were the bleeding edge. All that was a long time ago and things have evolved. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Jan. 30, 2012: >You should certainly be aided by all the constitution writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa — that was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recently than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. So, yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

DudeInBasement 6y ago
America has never been a democracy. It amazes me that people think we are smarter now, than we were then. We are just surrounded with technology.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  We don't have to be smarter to learn from historical stuff that happened. My IQ doesn't go up any when I burn myself on a hot stove, but I certainly learn something.
amalcon 6y ago
The way these things are taught in history class is pretty weird, and goes a long way toward explaining this. The Connecticut Compromise is a great example. You're taught that the large states wanted representation in proportion to population, and the small states wanted states to be represented identically (regardless of population), for obvious reasons. So, they decided to split the difference, making one house proportional and the other population-independent. While they did this because it was the only thing they could get agreement on, it was also the greatest civic invention since democracy itself... by coincidence, I guess? Yeah, it's pretty weird.

CalChris 6y ago

Interest in the Anti-Federalist papers is a recent phenomenon. In the 19th century one of their rare cites was in the Dred Scott decision, their second of the century. There were only five cites and no quotes for the entire 19th century. They were rarely cited until the 1960s. "From 1900 to 1959, the Court cited the Anti-Federalist Papers approximately once per decade." [1] The Anti-Federalist papers are only interesting if you want to re-litigate federalism vs 'states rights'. [1] https://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2063/Issue%205/4%20Zelinsky%201067%20-%201113.pdf https://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2063/Issue%205...