The Anti-Federalists Were Not Right

Gary Galles of LewRockwell makes an extraordinary claim: the anti-federalists, the opponents of the Federal Constitution were right (Hat Tip: Right Mind.):

September 27 marks the anniversary of the publication of the first of the Antifederalist Papers in 1789. The Antifederalists were opponents of ratifying the US Constitution. They feared that it would create an overbearing central government, while the Constitution’s proponents promised that this would not happen. As the losers in that debate, they are largely overlooked today. But that does not mean they were wrong or that we are not indebted to them.

In many ways, the group has been misnamed. Federalism refers to the system of decentralized government. This group defended states rights – the very essence of federalism – against the Federalists, who would have been more accurately described as Nationalists. Nonetheless, what the so-called Antifederalists predicted would be the results of the Constitution turned out to be true in most every respect.

Let us pause to consider Mr. Galles’ argument. Because 220 years after the fact, government growth is out of control, the anti-federalists were right to oppose the Constitution in the 1780s. Does Mr. Galles believe that America would have continued for this long under the Articles of Confederation or an amended version thereof? Unlikely. The Articles were untenable, and the country would have disentegrated as people would seek order under a monarchy. We know from history that while Washington wasn’t willing to be king, there were many men who would have jumped at the chance. Aaron Burr was a prominent example who would have gladly been king, and in a state of disorder where there is no stability of property and currency, people will turn to anyone to restore order.

What we see now is not the result of passing the Constitution, but ignoring it. It is not that the anti-federalist were right, it is rather a force of political entropy, the natural decay of a political system based on the decline of a people’s culture and morality.  Eventually, systems break down, not because the systems are bad, but because people fail to appreciate and honor them. Whether we ended up in our current state after 220 years or have 320 years, or 520 years, it doesn’t vindicate the advocates of the Articles of Confederation.

It is not the Constitution that failed us, it is we who have failed the Constitution. The Constitution constructed by the Founding Fathers is still a strong bulwark that protects from government tyranny despite our efforts to take a hatchet to it, and the calls of the unlearned and unwise to break this great work of liberty.

The anti-federalists were not bad men, and their concerns were valid, but had America heeded their advice, the end of our Revolution would have been disaster. We would have had no Republic. How one overlooks the whole of our history in which our nation prospered, in which freedom has been offered as it has in no other nation, and skips ahead to our profligate time to conclude that we would have been better off without the Constitution is beyond me.