War drums

[Paul Finkelman]

There were a few antifederalists whose concerns were honestly held, and not antidemocratic; there were also a few who ardently believed in the "antidemocratic" notion of a bill of rights; but in general, I think Cal is correct that the A-F's lost and it is somewhat dangerous to read either the bill of rights or the constitution as though they had won; the leading antifederalists, like Henry and Lee , were not even that fond of bill of rights, complaining it was "tub to the whale" that distrcated people from the real *antislavery* goals
of a weaker national government.  Thus, they hear no war drums, because if they did they would have had to conceded the need for a stronger national government.

--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma  74104-2499

918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)

paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu



Calvin Johnson wrote:

> Sandy argued,
> >One can imply extremely little about any specific section of the
> >Constitution from the fact that a majority supported its ratification.
> and that
> >It is altogether possible that majorities opposed
> >almost every individual section of the Constitution yet thought that the
> >supporters were righton the defense argument and (reluctantly) ratified the
> >Constitution anyway.
>
> It is helpful to know that the Constituion was adopted by overwhelming support, that the opponents were unattractive people committed to feudal baronies, not democrats, with no vision of the future attractive to us. The Anti-Federalists lost and good riddance. {If you will give me this premise, stated with this vigor, you can have the argument that the overall tenor does not necessarily affect every interpretative sub-division}
> The Anti-Federalists also didnt buy the war drums junk for a minute. "We have no powerful nation in our neighborhood," Brutus stated. . Some of the European nations, it is true, have provinces bordering upon us, but if any of them should attack us, they will have to transport their armies across the Atlantic, at immense expense, while we should defend ourselves in our own country. "As to the danger arising from borders," Patrick Henry argued, "it is mutual and reciprocal. If it be dangerous for Virginia, it is equally so for them." .
>
> >Approved-By: volokh at MAIL.LAW.UCLA.EDU
> >X-Sender: SLevinson at mail.law.utexas.edu
> >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
> >Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:26:50 -0500
> >Reply-To: Discussion list for con law professors
> > <CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu>
> >Sender: Discussion list for con law professors
> > <CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu>
> >From: Sanford Levinson <SLevinson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU>
> >Subject: Re: 65% support for the C.
> >To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
> >
> >One can imply extremely little about any specific section of the
> >Constitution from the fact that a majority supported its ratification. As
> >many political scientists have argued, the brilliance of the Federalists
> >was in being able to present the Constitution as an adhesion contract. A
> >look at the ratification debates, most definitely including The Federalist,
> >reveals, among other things, that supporters of the Constitution kept
> >playing the "defense card" (some things never change!), i.e., arguing that
> >the U.S. was vulnerable to attacks from Britain, France, Spain, and
> >American Indians and that only ratification of the Constitution (and
> >allowing, among other things, a standing army) would adequately protect the
> >vulnerable country. Then, as now, the logic of the argument was that
> >"small" disagreements should be subordinated to the overriding good of
> >preserving the nation. It is altogether possible that majorities opposed
> >almost every individual section of the Constitution yet thought that the
> >supporters were righton the defense argument and (reluctantly) ratified the
> >Constitution anyway. Or I might be completely wrong, and majorities might
> >indeed have agreed with every word in The Federalist. The major point is
> >that gross voting data is almost entirely unreliable in answering such
> >questions.
> >
> >Sandy
> >
>
> Calvin H. Johnson
> Andrews & Kurth Centennial Professor of Law
> The University of Texas School of Law
> 727 E. 26th St.
> Austin, TX 78705
> (512) 232-1306 (voice)
> FAX: (512) 232-2399
> Website: http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson