I had a request for this in .pdf format
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/an...listpapers.pdf
I believe it is the complete works of the Anti Feds.
“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” - Arnold Toynbee
Their (The Federalists) menacing cry is for a RIGID government, it matters little to them of what kind, provided it answers THAT description.
Anti Federalist 1
It all sounds so familiar.As the plan now offered comes something near
their wishes, and is the most consonant to their views of any they can hope for, they come boldly
forward and DEMAND its adoption. They brand with infamy every man who is not as
determined and zealous in its favor as themselves. They cry aloud the whole must be swallowed
or none at all, thinking thereby to preclude any amendment; they are afraid of having it abated of
its present RIGID aspect. They have strived to overawe or seduce printers to stifle and obstruct a
free discussion, and have endeavored to hasten it to a decision before the people can duty reflect
upon its properties. In order to deceive them, they incessantly declare that none can discover any
defect in the system but bankrupts who wish no government, and officers of the present
government who fear to lose a part of their power.
"The Patriarch"
///
Originally Posted by Anti Federalist
Thanks!
Thank you very much!
Any idea why this other set is 1800+ pages?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0226775739/
Pictures? Very large type font?
It's a study guide, I highly recommend it, I have a set.The Complete Anti-Federalist, first published in 1981, contains an unprecedented collection of all the significant pamphlets, newspaper articles and letters, essays, and speeches that were written in opposition to the Constitution during the ratification debate. Storing’s work includes introductions to each entry, along with his own consideration of the Anti-Federalist thought.
But that's why it is 1800 pages.
The link I gave is just for the "papers", the published articles.
Some of the speeches and debates went on for days.
Here is a bookstore where you can get it, or an abridged version.
http://www.toadbooks.com/search/site...list%20Storing
BTW, I have that file in the OP saved if it ever goes down the memory hole, I can email it to anybody who needs it.
Here's an Amazon link to an abridged version of Story's work.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Anti-Feder...ct_top?ie=UTF8
Thanks for posting that.
I've got HVACTech busting my chops from time to time over this issue, and apparently he gets most of his information about the constitution from a buddy who is taking this course at Hillsdale.
That explains a lot.yah. a good friend on mine. (was a basic neocon) is taking the courses at Hillsdale college.
http://lp.hillsdale.edu/constitution...ampaign=con101
he is now on the 2nd level.. and we talk about it daily.
check this out dude, the education that we got back in the day, is holding up pretty darn good.
ceptin of course for that "anti-federalist" guy. I KNOW what that means now...
this site has anti-constitution gatekeepers....
and in case you have not noticed, they promote open rebellion as the ONLY just option.
I am here to PROMOTE and explain the US Constitution.
for that is what Dr Paul did for us.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...contract/page6
I thank you for defending me HB!!! WHO would have thought?
complicated, well, YOU know.. technical stuff.. befuddles me.
that I know of, ONLY Danke and I can defend what we SAY we are.
what do you and your butt buddy AF do for a living? (or is that a secret?)
the Federalist/ anti-Federalist debate, was settled amicably a VERY long time ago.
and yes! they were BOTH right!
or, is that to complex for you to understand?
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
They can't both be right.
If the Anti Feds were correct, ie: that the 1787 constitution would lead to tyranny and an imperial presidency, then the notion that the document would "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" is obviously wrong.
'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr
of course they can BOTH be right.
this was WHY they had this argument in public.
are YOU denying that they BOTH produced something,
(actually 2 "somethings")
VERY publicly?
was it really done in secret? was it also rushed?
history, (that you ignore) clearly shows this to NOT be the case.
passage was also NOT contingent on your beloved Bill of rights, that was tacked on 4 years later.
in case it has NOT occurred to you or anyone else.
being an "anti-Federalist" in 2007 or 2015 is MUCH different than what it was in 1786.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
of course they can BOTH be right.
this was WHY they had this argument in public.
are YOU denying that they BOTH produced something,
(actually 2 "somethings")
VERY publicly?
was it really done in secret? was it also rushed?
history, (that you ignore) clearly shows this to NOT be the case.
passage was also NOT contingent on your beloved Bill of rights, that was tacked on 4 years later.
in case it has NOT occurred to you or anyone else.
being an "anti-Federalist" in 2007 or 2015 is MUCH different than what it was in 1786.The Constitution of the United States: Fast Facts
- The U. S Constitution was written in the same Pennsylvania State House where the Declaration of Independence was signed and where George Washington received his commission as Commander of the Continental Army. Now called Independence Hall, the building still stands today on Independence Mall in Philadelphia, directly across from the National Constitution Center.
- Written in 1787, the Constitution was signed on September 17. But it wasn’t until 1788 that it was ratified by the necessary nine states.
- The U.S. Constitution was prepared in secret, behind locked doors that were guarded by sentries.
- Some of the original framers and many delegates in the state ratifying conventions were very troubled that the original Constitution lacked a description of individual rights. In 1791, Americans added a list of rights to the Constitution. The first ten amendments became known as The Bill of Rights.
- Of the 55 delegates attending the Constitutional Convention, 39 signed and 3 delegates dissented. Two of America’s Founding Fathers didn’t sign the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was representing his country in France and John Adams was doing the same in Great Britain.
- Established on November 26, 1789, the first national “Thanksgiving Day” was originally created by George Washington as a way of “giving thanks” for the Constitution.
- Of the written national constitutions, the U.S. Constitution is the oldest and shortest.
- At 81, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania was the oldest delegate at the Constitutional Convention and at 26, Jonathon Dayton of New Jersey was the youngest.
- The original Constitution is on display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, it was moved to Fort Knox for safekeeping.
- More than 11,000 amendments have been introduced in Congress. 33 have gone to the states to be ratified and 27 have received the necessary approval from the states to actually become amendments to the Constitution.
http://constitutioncenter.org/learn/...ion-fast-facts
No. I'm saying if one is correct, the other must be wrong, because, clearly, we have devolved into a tyranny.of course they can BOTH be right.
this was WHY they had this argument in public.
are YOU denying that they BOTH produced something,
(actually 2 "somethings")
VERY publicly?
Yes it was, see post #21was it really done in secret? was it also rushed?
Had it not, it would have quite likely sparked another revolution.history, (that you ignore) clearly shows this to NOT be the case.
passage was also NOT contingent on your beloved Bill of rights, that was tacked on 4 years later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Bill_of_Rights
Read, specifically, the part about the "Massachusetts Compromise".
How so?in case it has NOT occurred to you or anyone else.
being an "anti-Federalist" in 2007 or 2015 is MUCH different than what it was in 1786.
I, like Smedley Butler, believe in only two reason in going to war, one to defend your home and the other to defend the Bill of Rights.
I think the fedgov has become an imperial tyranny.
I think the President has become a monarch in all but title.
The only difference is the Anti Feds warned this would happen, and I know it has happened.
And that the fault must clearly lie with the charter document that set this mess up in the first place.
It is imperative to read the A-F papers to understand the issues surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and it also settles the argument of whether the Constitution was designed to apply to the federal government only.
Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.
Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.
what the hell is wrong with you people? the 2nd US constitution ,
was PROPOSED in 1787.
2 years LATER, 1789
it was Ratified.
nearly 3 years later, Dec 1791
the bill of rights was added.
why are you making an argument that it was "rushed" and in "secret" ?
no, it is NOT.It is imperative to read the A-F papers to understand the issues surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and it also settles the argument of whether the Constitution was designed to apply to the federal government only.
what IS necessary is to understand that they are 3 SEPARATE and distinct documents.
mixing them up is like confusing AC with DC.
if you want to understand the Constitution, fine! do NOT include the "amendments" to it and it will become VERY clear.
Amendments are modifiers to the original.
why don't YOU just read it yourself?the argument of whether the Constitution was designed to apply to the federal government only.
and then show me SOMETHING that applies to the people?
can YOU do this thing?
no, YOU cannot.
like "Cold" you will be searching for something that does NOT exist.
fair warning,
it is NOT wise, to argue with me that "cold" exists.
Last edited by HVACTech; 06-10-2015 at 07:05 PM.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
The whole thing was completed in a matter of months, which, by 1787 standards is rushed.what the hell is wrong with you people? the 2nd US constitution ,
was PROPOSED in 1787.
2 years LATER, 1789
it was Ratified.
nearly 3 years later, Dec 1791
the bill of rights was added.
why are you making an argument that it was "rushed" and in "secret" ?
14 May to 10 Sept.
It was conceived and debated in secret, under armed guard.
And certain members of the Continental Congress only consented to ratification because:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ConstitutionThe United States Bill of Rights consists of 10 amendments added to the Constitution in 1791, as supporters of the Constitution had promised critics during the debates of 1788
This is a matter of historical fact.
supine observation sir!
Like Ron Paul, I am a champion of the 2nd US Constitution.
I acknowledge that you consider me a FOOL for doing such a thing.
what sir, are you a champion of?
what should we leave our children. permanent Anarchy?
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
Prophecy
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
the "GodSpell"?
or did I spell "Gospel" wrong?
in Arkansas, etymology is an art form.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
FREEDOM, SIR.
The constitution was a Hamiltonian coup, a take-over for a large central government. It has worked pretty well, wouldn't you agree?
The Amendments were added because of the vagueness of the constitution on inalienable rights; many states would not sign it. What you claim to support is the reason we are in the mess we are in today.
There is no spoon.
I don't think you a fool, just uniformed.
Freedom.
Freedom that was lost under the system set up by the document in question.
So when and if we are ever lucky enough to reset the clock to zero and start over, the warnings that went unheeded 228 years ago will be listened to.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us