Colonial Anti-Federalists;
Commentary by Daniel
Benson
Without a doubt, our nation’s Founding Fathers would not recognize the
nation which they fought and died for to establish. They would quickly
recognize that the words “One nation, under God with liberty and justice for
all” ring hollow. They would see a nation which allows all forms of evil in its
midst yet claims to stand for righteousness. They would be outraged over the
fact that the government they established has legalized the industry of killing
our nation’s unborn. They would be appalled at the very thought that the
Federal government and most, if not all of the states which they represented,
in one form or another, have sanctioned sodomy. They would be more than angry
over the subversion of people’s and states rights and up in arms over the power
which the Federal and state governments have delegated themselves to tax,
confiscate private property and establish unconstitutional, bureaucratic
departments to control every aspect of our citizens’ lives.
What Happened?
So, how did we get to where we are
today? Where did we go wrong? Unfortunately, one of the primary reasons (which
will more than likely come as a shock to all but a few readers of this article)
may be found in one of the first official acts of
the Continental Congress – the drafting of our original Constitution.
First a little
history. The ground war for our independence started on
Keep in mind,
from 1775 until 1781 the war for independence was raging. During this time period there were 13
colonies (states) and in order to form a united front in their battle for
independence from
During the four years after the war
it was decided that the Articles had
served as a good foundation for governing the
The main issues before the
Convention were clear. They were to establish workable executive and judicial
branches, establish a common currency and taxation system, set regulations for
commerce, provide for the laying and collecting of duties on imports and
establish the authority to make treaties.
In principle, the republican ideal
of a federal government existing under the authority of the states was to be
maintained. Such a governmental structure would prohibit a centralization of
power that could lead to tyranny. This was the republican ideal that Americans
bled and died for in their fight for independence.
Good Intentions Go Wrong
Unfortunately what happened at the
Convention was a travesty. The great and true Christian Patriot, Patrick Henry
said; “The convention overstepped its bounds” and “I smell a rat”! Instead of just “amending” the Articles of Confederation, the Articles were completely scrapped in
violation of the Convention’s charter. The new document (our original Constitution) was to be ratified not by Congress and the state legislatures as
mandated by the Articles of Confederation,
but by
the people through State Constitutional Conventions under Article VII
of the newly drafted Constitution.
The republican principal of a
two-tiered government where the federated states operated as checks and
balances on the central government was abandoned. The new centralized Federal government
established its own checks and balances and the states were subjected to the
supreme authority of the Federal government. Articles 1.8 and 2.2 of the Constitution were so written that they
have become the foundation for Federal authority over the states and their
citizens in almost every aspect of daily life.
Does this make our original and
present Constitutions unlawful
documents? Doesn't it seem odd that a republic’s first act in ratifying its own
governing document bypassed the representative bodies of the republic --
Congress and the state legislatures? In
doing so, did not those who favored a centralized Federal government facilitate
a direct
democracy in their appeal to the people? A direct democracy was something which many
of the Founders specifically warned against because they new full well that it
would lead to chaos and the eventual self-destruction of the country.
The framers of the Constitution deliberately made an end
run around the state and congressional ratification systems because they knew that
what they had drafted was clearly not what the Congress and the state
legislatures had authorized them to do and knew full well that it would not be
ratified by the states and Congress. Is
this not a spirit of rebellion against authority?
Federalists v. Anti-Federalists
Some of the delegates to the
Constitutional Convention were so outraged over the final document that they
refused to sign it. Others signed with great reservations. This rift split the
delegation into two groups. The Federalist, who supported the
new Constitution and the
Anti-Federalist who opposed the document. The debate became so heated
that some in the Anti-Federalist camp talked of taking up arms if the Constitution was ratified in its current
state. But Patrick Henry persuaded his like-minded true Christian patriots to
work for amendments which he felt would over rule the inherent centralization
of power in the Constitution. These
amendments became known as the, Bill of
Rights.
Out of this ratification process,
came the first great media blitz in a battle to win the hearts and minds of the
American people. This played itself out in the distribution of the, Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. The Anti-Federalists wrote over 85 articles
from
The Federalists Papers argued that
the Constitution would solve all our
ills and create a more perfect union. If it were not ratified the result would be
chaos. They argued that once the Constitution was ratified, it could
always be amended after the fact. Forced slavery did not need to be outlawed
and there should be no religious test for office, out of the fear of religious
tyranny.
Washington, Adams, Jefferson,
Hamilton and Franklin all opposed
the Bill of Rights. They feared that it
would just be the beginning of a non-ending list of rights people would claim
under the Constitution. They held
that the definition of terms and vague statements of government powers, as
stated in the Constitution, did not
need to be clearly defined because it was argued that they would be commonly
understood. Natural law and common sense rationalism would rule. The document
would change for the better with usage and the passage of time.
Obviously the Federalists were
heavily influenced by the pop culture of their time. This pop culture was
shaped by; The Enlightenment, Lockean Philosophies
and Thomas Paine’s, avocation of common sense in his book, Age of Reason. Today we
would call it humanism.
The Anti-Federalist Papers refuted
those arguments and in doing so, proved their wisdom by prophesizing the future
of our nation under this Constitution.
History would prove the Anti-Federalist's arguments were based on truth.
The following are some of the issues
addressed by the Anti-Federalist that show they had a better biblical
understanding of the fallen nature of man. Based on current events, I think you
will find all of these truths to be self-evident:
* The Constitution would benefit only the
Aristocrats. (The elite, the wealthy and powerful have consolidated power in
the hands of the few.)
* The Constitution would lead to civil war. (Which came to pass in just 84 years after the signing of the
document.)
* Slavery would be
abolished. (How much further along in race relations would we be today if we
had an 80 year head start in the abolition of slavery.)
* Unabated foreign influence.
(Remember the elections of the Clinton Administration?)
* The loss of
individual liberty and property rights. (All of us can attest to this problem.)
* State authority
will ultimately and completely be subverted. (Another
self-evident truth.)
* The President
would be like a king over the military. (Congress has conducted all wars since
WWII without a declaration of war.)
* No real restraint
on the power to tax. (Think of our current tax rates and government glut.)
* No real restraint
on the power to make treaties. (Remember NAFT, GAT and other U.N. Treaties?)
* Checks and
Balances in the Constitution were
insufficient and would lead to tyranny and the
loss of individual and states rights. (Half of
all voters don’t vote because they believe their votes don’t count or effect
government policy.)
* No religious test
would result in leaders who would be pagans of every kind and deists. (Ten of
the 13 Colonies had biblically based religious tests to be in government and
look at the moral character of many members of Congress today.)
* The lack of a Bill of Rights would definitely lead to
tyranny. (Think of where we would be today as a nation and a people if it were
not for the Bill of Rights.)
* The power of the
judiciary would be unchecked. (Today we have an unrestrained Supreme Court
which has taken it upon itself to legislate from the bench.)
History tells us that the Federalists
won the day and how the majority of the American people were influenced by the
pop culture of the time. The only victory for the Anti-Federalists was the
adoption of the Bill of Rights. But
in the light of present day events, this seems a hollow victory. It appears that our friends like Patrick
Henry were satisfied that the Bills of
Rights would be sufficient to maintain a balance of power and prevent
tyranny. History has proved them all wrong on this one issue.
Now the question is, where do we go from here?
And with God’s help, how do we proceed?
I believe the first step is what I have attempted to do in this article.
We need an honest assessment of where we have come from so we have a solid
foundation to build a plan for the future.
The Bible relates its history
and it’s heroes with the good, the bad and the ugly. This is how we know the Bible is true and the Word of God. When humans write history
there is always a spin and slant to the narrative. On the one hand we’ve had secular historians
ignore our Christian heritage all together.
On the other hand we’ve had Christian historians who have played the
same game to counter the secular humanist.
In Pat Buchanan’s book, Death of
the West, he argues that we need to maintain a “mythology” about our Founding
Fathers, holding them up like epic heroes being larger than real life. I strongly disagree with this point of view.
Without a solid and honest view of history including the mistakes of the past,
we are doomed to repeat those same mistakes or have solutions that will not
deal with the real issues. If we are not
honest about our past, we are doomed to build our future not based on truth,
but on a foundation of sand. As Jesus said in Mathew
7:26-27; “a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell,
and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it
fell—and great was its fall.”
I would like to quote from my
American Christian Hero, Patrick Henry in his speech to the Virginia
Constitutional Ratifying Convention. “When the American spirit was in its
youth, the language of
Conclusion
God’s blessings to
Daniel Benson is a former
Marine Corps Captain with a Bachelor of Science in Secondary Education from the