The Anti-Federalist: Writings by the Opponents of the Constitution

An abridged edition from the Complete Anti-Federalist, "The Anti Federalist" is the antitheses to Federalist thinking. Between this book and "The Federalist papers", you will have gained a pretty good understanding of the time in which Constitution had been founded. As now, and as then, different view points were held and expressed.If you have the chance to buy/read the complete unabridged version, I would highly recommend that, but this will certainly provide a very good idea of the thoughts from the anti-federalists. Also, please grab the complete Federalist Papers. These are excellent books to have in your home library, or as a gift to those that appreciate self edification.

Storing, one of the foremost experts on the Federalist / Antifederalist debates provides great insight into the thinking of the Antifederalists. His introduction to the sections provide key insights into Antifederalist thinking, illuminating the deep reservations they had over what they saw as a "radical" departure from the Federalist principles of the Articles of Confederation. A wonderful resource for those interested in colonial history and the genesis of our Constitution.

Get into pre-civil war politics. Read it.

Outstanding collection of documents.

Good read!!

Its a textbook folks! Honestly, I have yet to open it (to read), as it is not required reading yet. With that said, the book arrived on time and in perfect condition. Thanks.

Herbert J. Storing (1928-1977) was a professor of Constitutional History and Law at the University of Virginia. This book is the Introduction to his 1977 complete seven-volume set of letters, pamphlets, and speeches in  The Complete Anti-Federalist . The Introduction to his seven-volume set is also available separately:  What the Anti-Federalists Were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution by Storing, Herbert J. published by University Of Chicago Press Paperback .One writer notes, "The senate, the great efficient body in this plan of government, is constituted on the most unequal principles. The smallest state in the union has equal weight with the great states of Virginia, Massachusetts, or Pannsylvania..." (Pg. 19) One writer criticizes the power of the judges: "(T)here is no power above them that can control their decisions, or correct their errors... in many cases their power is superior to that of the legislature." (Pg. 184) Another observes, "The powers of Congress under the new constitution, are complete and unlimited over the PURSE and the SWORD, and are perfectly independent of, and supreme over, the state governments." (Pg. 210)Another laments, "The non-attendance of eight or nine men, who were appointed members of the convention, I shall ever consider as a very unfortunate event to the United States. Had they attended, I am pretty clear, that the result of the convention would not have had that strong tendency to aristrocracy now discernible in every part of the plan." (Pg. 37) A writer suggests, "It is not possible to collect a set of representatives, who are acquainted with all parts of the continent. Can you find men in Georgia who are acquainted with the situation in New Hampshire?" (Pg. 354)A writer argues, "A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens." (Pg. 115) Another argues in favor of a Bill of Rights, "Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights?" (Pg. 122)This abridgement is an excellent and broad introduction to the actual writings of the Anti-Federalists.

Sure, it is abridged, but perhaps not all of us have the time to read all 7 volumes.I think it is pretty important that you read both sides of the argument (get a copy of the federealist papers as well, I got this one:  1441413049  There are strong reasons both for and against a strong federal government rather than a weaker one where states have most of the power.It is really quit enlightening to see both sides of the argument. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Patrick Henry are some of the most recognized names of the time, and they were all anti-federalists. Why were they against the constitution?1) Too much power to the federal gov, at the expense of states2) Executive branch was too powerful3) The government could maintain an army even when not at war (military industrial complex ring a bell, anyone?)4) "Necessary and proper" or elastic clause gave congress way too much power - seems like our congress today is doing much more than "necessary and proper" to use their enumerated powersI'd have say at this point in time, seeing what has become of our federal government, the anti-federalists were right. Although I haven't read other editions, from what I have read of what others have to say, Herbert Storing's version in terms of unabridged is unrivaled. Seems like even the abridged version is quite good relative to other editors (from reviews I have read this seems to be the case).