Customer Reviews

The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788 (Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American Hist)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. Jackson Turner Main's's book illustrates how political discourse became contentious once Americans started to debate the formation of a national government. To illustrate the use of pseudonyms by American founders to make their political points, it is necessary to match up some pseudonyms to their authors and examine why the pseudonym was used. Since Cato's Letters made such an impression on Americans, the use of the pseudonym "Cato" will be examined first. During the debates to ratify the U. S. Constitution in the 1780's, several political leaders relied on a well known group of Roman personages and used them as pseudonyms to argue either for or against ratification of the Constitution. The group of politicians arguing against ratification was known as the Antifederalists. Their leading standard-bearer was George Clinton who served as governor of New York from 1777 to 1795, and wrote newspaper editorials under the pseudonym "Cato." "Cato" along with other Antifederalists writing under such pseudonyms as "Agrippa" and "Brutus" vociferously argued in their writings against ratification of the Constitution because they believed it put too much power in the hands of the federal government and left little power to the states. Perceiving that citizens would fear the tyranny of the few, at the federal level the Antifederalists argued for more governmental power to devolve to locally elected representatives at the state level, where citizens would have greater influence on government and law making policy. Classically educated Citizens who saw the names "Cato," "Agrippa," and "Brutus" associated with Antifederalism, instantly recognize that the group's political sentiments stand for defending republican ideals through virtue and morality in government and against the tyranny of the privileged few.

As a graduate student in philosophy and history, I recommended this book for anyone interested in early American history, philosophy, education, the humanities.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. Jackson Turner Main's's book illustrates how political discourse became contentious once Americans started to debate the formation of a national government. To illustrate the use of pseudonyms by American founders to make their political points, it is necessary to match up some pseudonyms to their authors and examine why the pseudonym was used. Since Cato's Letters made such an impression on Americans, the use of the pseudonym "Cato" will be examined first. During the debates to ratify the U. S. Constitution in the 1780's, several political leaders relied on a well known group of Roman personages and used them as pseudonyms to argue either for or against ratification of the Constitution. The group of politicians arguing against ratification was known as the Antifederalists. Their leading standard-bearer was George Clinton who served as governor of New York from 1777 to 1795, and wrote newspaper editorials under the pseudonym "Cato." "Cato" along with other Antifederalists writing under such pseudonyms as "Agrippa" and "Brutus" vociferously argued in their writings against ratification of the Constitution because they believed it put too much power in the hands of the federal government and left little power to the states. Perceiving that citizens would fear the tyranny of the few, at the federal level the Antifederalists argued for more governmental power to devolve to locally elected representatives at the state level, where citizens would have greater influence on government and law making policy. Classically educated Citizens who saw the names "Cato," "Agrippa," and "Brutus" associated with Antifederalism, instantly recognize that the group's political sentiments stand for defending republican ideals through virtue and morality in government and against the tyranny of the privileged few.

As a graduate student in philosophy and history, I recommended this book for anyone interested in early American history, philosophy, education, the humanities.