I certainly don't possess the background and expertise in legal/constitutional history
that Paul (and probably assorted others on this list) can claim, but I think some
additional caveats are in order. A good book challenging the simple propositions that
the Antifederalists "lost" and then "simply disappeared" is Saul Cornell's The Other
Founders.

Though they were certainly a diverse collection of political thinkers and
practitioners, the Antifederalists did succeed in forcing the issue of a bill of
rights for the new Constitution onto the agenda of the first federal Congress. It is
interesting to speculate about what might have happened, and when, if these
Antifederalist demands had not been heeded.

Cornell also explains the many ways in which Antifederal thinking and energies
(suspicion of centralized government, localist vision of politics, commitment to
emerging "public sphere" for political discourse) fed into the Democratic-Republican
side of the first party system that took shape in the 1790s. With the election of
1800, those ideas and energies were no longer limited to a "loyal opposition" but were
reflected frequently, if not consistently, in the policies and leanings of the young
federal government itself. Since then, according to Cornell, much of the "spirit," if
not the structures of American politics, can be traced back to Antifederalist roots. I
believe he quotes Martin Van Buren as having said something like this (don't have his
book in front of me).

In short, it may make sense to term the Antifeds "losers" (as shorthand), but only if
we also acknowledge the far-reaching impact they had on American political values and
the Constitution.

Doug Deal
History/SUNY Oswego

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html