🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 02 Nov 1996 17:59:25 -0500 "Stephen W. Anderson"
<swa@interpath.com> wrote in az.general:

While of necessity somewhat oversimplified, your post was a fine brief
introduction, Stephen.

. . .
 
  > Remember especially when reading them that the Federalist point of view
  > was only one of the two leading ones of the time, viewpoints the
  > unresolved tension between which still plays a powerful role in our
  > political wars today, 1994 being a notable case in point. The Papers
  > were written to enhance the chances of ratifcation of 

[what we now refer to as]

  > the main body of the Constitution 

[Note: It was, after all *_the_* Constitution, not its "main body",
which they were tasked to approve or reject.]

  > and form our best record of the arguments of those who
  > supported the establishment of a strong national state. 

[Well, kinda.  This overlooks the actual record of the ratification
debates which took place in the several states, and in particular the
Virginia ratification debate wherein one will find not only the
Federalist but the anti-Federalist position well-presented.]

  > Despite having
  > hijacked the Convention and even the name "Federalist," they couldn't
  > get quite what they wanted; 

[This of necessity oversimplifies by suggesting inaccurately that the
Federalists were all of a single mind.  (See for example Clinton
Rossiter's, "1787 The Grand Convention".)  Madison, for example, would
come to reverse his position on the merits of the Bill of Rights,
largely because of the correspondence from the absent Jefferson who
was in France.]

  > . . .Knowing the Federalists for the closet statists many of them 
  > were the Antifederalists insisted on the subsequently much ignored 
  > 9th and 10th  Amendments as a part of it.

Here you do your piece a disservice by applying a term ("closet
statists") that's a misleading anachronism.  With a few possible
exception, calling the Federalists "closet statist" makes use of a
modern characterization that really does not fit the historical
picture.  The dispute between the Federalists and their opponents was
over the kind and extent of central governmental authority to which
the 13 states would submit themselves.  It was dispute over the degree
and kind of authority that would be necessary for that central
government to bind thirteen individual countries together into a new
nation.
 
  > The point, however, is that the Federalist Papers, while invaluable,
  > provide only a minor portion of the background essential to gaining a
  > well-rounded picture of the Constitution's intent. 

Well said.  

  > It is necessary to take into account the views of the Antifederalists 
  > and the States 

???  The views of "the states"?  I'm not clear what you're trying to
say here.  The "states" clearly did not have "views".

  > as
  > well, and once one has done so he often will find his eyes unexpectedly
  > opened to the issue of the Constitutionality of the concentration of
  > political power we have permitted the United States government to
  > accumulate.  . . .

Indeed.  Madison among others would be appalled.  But then Madison is
the giant among giants.

Again, despite what my comments might suggest, you've written a fine
essay.

-={lsg}=-