Book Review

In a 1955 article for the William and Mary Quarterly, Cecelia Kenyon referred to the Antifederalists as "men of little faith." In The Antifederalists: Men of Great Faith and Forbearance, David J. Siemers argues that the opposite is true. Far from being a monolithic bloc of knee-jerk reactionaries, the Antifederalists emerge as thoughtful, restrained, and concerned men. Too long stereotyped and overlooked by most Americans, the Antifederalists are brought back to life through Siemers' book, and in doing so it emerges that many of their complaints about the Constitution have since proven to be eerily prophetic, and well worth reading in modern America.

The first chapter encompasses a thorough yet simple history and explanation of who the Antifederalists were and what they believed. Succeeding chapters supply samples of Antifederalist documents, edited and arranged by topic. The inclusion of so many primary sources gives the reader a chance to really get to know these men on a more personal level. Readers are able to analyze the Antifederalists and their beliefs directly, not simply through Siemers' lens.

A close examination reveals that for all the difference of opinion, there were identifiable core beliefs held by nearly all Antifederalists. First and foremost, everyone agreed that the Articles of Confederation needed revision. They also tended to agree that any new government must have the power to tax. They disagreed with their Federalist brethren on how to implement this new government.

Nearly all of their objections centered on the prospects a more powerful government afforded tyrants. Here the Antifederalists demonstrated their belief in the Calvinist doctrine of the Total Depravity of Man. If the new government allowed for opportunities to abuse power, the Antifederalists expected someone to exploit them to the fullest extent. The Antifederalists therefore argued that the utmost care must be used in choosing and implementing governmental safeguards.

Siemers breaks the specific complaints down into two basic categories: errors of commission and errors of omission. An example of an error of commission would be the "necessary and proper" clause in Article I, Section 8. The Antifederalists argued, accurately, that this would come to be interpreted as carte blanche permission to pass any law imaginable. They pointed out that effectively removing the legislative limits of the Congress, which they considered the most powerful branch of the government, would be an open invitation to tyranny.

Another serious mistake, according to the Antifederalists, resided in the Supremacy Clause. In it, the law of the national government clearly trumped all laws passed by the respective states. What would happen when the government passed statutes binding on the whole country, but found them staunchly opposed by various states on moral, practical, or political grounds? Of course, this fear has been translated into reality on a number of different occasions, from enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act in Free States in the 1850s, to the ban on school prayer, to nationwide abortion on demand.

The most obvious sins of omission involved the Constitution's lack of a Bill of Rights. The Antifederalists also opposed the absence of restrictions on the government's power to tax and maintain a standing army. Federalist James Madison responded that such additions were unnecessary; the government was limited to only the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. The addition of a Bill of Rights or other specific