Customer Reviews

The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828 (Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture)

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

 

 

...they do things differently there. The Other Founders by Saul Cornell represents a needed correction to our historical understanding of American history from 1787 to 1830.
The tendency of scholars since the early works of Pocock, Robbins, Bailyn, Woods and McDonald has been to write about that period in terms divorced from a vocabulary of economic interests or class.
The other great simplification has been to see the period in bifurcated categories. Federalist vs. Anti-Federalists is the dichotomy that Cornell takes on. Does anyone think that the current American political scene can be adequately summarized as Democrats vs. Republicans? Is our current political and intellectual scene that much more complicated or nuanced or diverse than that of the founders? Only the Arrogance of the Present could make that claim.
What Cornell does is show that Anti-Federalism (A-F, for short) was a uniting of diverse interests and ideas for the purpose of opposing the Constitution. There were three major variations of A-F that Cornell delineates. There was the elitist version associated with thinkers like Richard Henry Lee and Elbridge Gerry. There was a "middling" A-F associated with New York and Pennsylvania thinkers like Melancton Smith. There was a plebian A-F associated w/ writers like William Manning and William Petrikin. By the way, getting to know these two characters is worth the reading of this book. Cornell is excellent in this early part of the book at explicating how these different types of A-F thought differently about issues like federalism, localism, the powers of juries vs. judges, representation and the role of political clubs and popular political rituals.
After A-F failed to stop ratification, they were united by their demands for a Bill of Rights. After the success of that endeavor, A-F was united by its opposition to the consolidationist tendencies of Hamilton and Adams. After the 1800 election brought to power administrations that shared their general concerns, the fault lines within A-F begin to split the movement. In the end, A-F split up into various strategies of constitutional interpretation that opposed what the Marshall court was doing.
All of this history is contained within 300 well-written pages.
There are a couple of methodological points that I want to make and then a few general comments.
The first methodological comment is that Cornell argues for a reevaluation of which were the most influential A-F writers on the basis of which were the ones whose essays were reprinted the most. This seems fair although it shunts to one side some of the more powerful A-F writers like Brutus.
The second methodological point is that Cornell uses Habermas' notion of the public sphere to great effect in this book. My problem with this is that occasionally he interjects that phrase into a quote by an A-F writer or, in one case, by Madison. I found myself wanting to go to library to read the original quote to see whether this usage might distort the meaning of the Madison quote. To introject a modern theoretical concept into a source quote is always (IMHO) questionable even if its use is arguably justified. There are bound to be distortions. But this is a somewhat minor point.
The first general comment is this. What is unique about ALL of the political theorists who wrote at this time in our history is that they were ALL either working politicians or public intellectuals. They were writing in response to the issues of the day, to the economic needs of their neighbors and to the shifting tides of power. Intellectual consistency is prized by theorists, by those isolated from life or who wish to impose on life a tyranny of ideas (if you cannot think of a current example for what I am saying than, for doG's sake, go read a newspaper). The Madison of Publius was not the same Madison who wrote the Virginia Resolution or the Report of 1800. Neither was the same Madison who served as our fourth President or the Madison in retirement from public life. This was a huge intellect responding to a vastly changing world. He realized that he had miscalculated and had to rethink basic issues. There is no one Madison that we can lay claim to. This is one of the strengths of Cornell's presentation.
Which brings me to my second point. I have a question to all those who advocate an "originalist" interpretation of the constitution. Whose "original" interpretation? Why theirs over the others that were being discussed at the time? Indeed, why theirs over ours considering how much the world has changed in the interlude? And would many of us really want to live under a national government as imagined by any of the founders?
I challenge y'all to read this book and then email me your answer. Let the debates begin!

"The Other Founders" by history professor Saul Cornell is a book about the Anti-Federalists, the "radical" wing of the American Revolution. The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the US constitution, believing that it would grant too much power to the federal authorities. While not necessarily opposed to some sort of federation, the Anti-Federalists wanted most power to be vested in the states, or even further down, at county level. After the US constitution had been ratified, Anti-Federalists usually joined the emerging Democratic-Republican movement of Thomas Jefferson, becoming a kind of "loyal opposition" within the federal structures they had previously opposed.

Saul Cornell believes that Anti-Federalist ideas and attitudes remained an important part of the political landscape even after the US constitution had been ratified. Although Anti-Federalists were, in one sense, on the loosing side, they didn't simply collapse or go away. After all, they were right: the United States *did* become more centralized and (perhaps) less democratic after the constitution had been adopted. As several other reviewers have pointed out, much opposition to the modern federal government sounds Anti-Federalist. (Strangely, many of these dissidents claim to uphold the constitution and the Federalist Papers.)

"The Other Founders" point out that Anti-Federalism wasn't a homogenous movement. Rather, it was a coalition of several different currents, hold together mostly by their shared opposition to the centralization proposed by the Federalists. Cornell distinguishes between elite, middling and plebeian Anti-Federalists.

The "middling" (middle class) group consisted of state politicians in New York and elsewhere who had rised to prominence after the revolution, due to the democratization of public life. They resented the traditional elite groups, but were equally suspicious of "the lower sort" and their "mobocracy". Charting a moderate middle course, the middling Anti-Federalists believed that the states should have most of the power. They were equally opposed to both localism and federal centralism. I got the impression that the middling group wanted to turn their respective states into a kind of nation-states, but go no further than that. They were also generally pro-commerce, "pro-capitalist", while opposing Hamilton, who was seen as the friend of speculators and corrupt politicians.

An interesting fact pointed to by Cornell is that both the elite Anti-Federalists and the plebeian faction were strongly localist. They were opposed to centralized federal power, and felt uneasy towards power on the state level as well. The elite group, apparently some kind of traditionalist Southern landowners, believed that the old elite could uphold its values (and control) only in a small-sized, rural setting. Only at the local level was it possible for the Southern gentlemen to influence the common people, in face-to-face contact and according to strict codes of honor and deference. The elite Anti-Federalists were also suspiscious of the emerging public sphere of newspapers, with their anonymous political articles and mass readership. This new public sphere, which was state-wide, nation-wide and "democratic", threatened the privileged positions of the landed gentry. The elitists were used to policy-making by personal contact between prominent people, or by the exchange of letters for strictly private consumption among a select few. The new era of popular appeals through mass media were not for them.

The most radical Anti-Federalists, the plebeians, were also localist. In their case, because direct democracy could function only at the local level. To the plebeians, the town meeting, local juries and (of course) the local militia were instruments of such direct democracy. They also had an "anti-capitalist" view of the economy, opposing debt repayments and claiming that the ecomomy should be based on moral principles. National banking, big-time commerce and speculation were seen as equally immoral.

Another highly interesting fact pointed out by Professor Cornell is that both elite and plebeian Anti-Federalists were anti-pluralists. Their conception of democracy differed markedly from the liberal one (which was more espoused by the middling camp). To elitists and plebeians alike, the community should be homogenous, and individuals could be censored by it. When plebeians in Carlisle rioted against a Federalist celebration, they invoked the idea of such a homogenous community. The Federalists should, in their opinion, have deferred to the local Anti-Federalist majority, and cancelled their meetings. Plebeians also supported test acts and loyalty oaths, which excluded non-Protestants (and even some Protestants) from full citizenship and public office. (In Pennsylvania, these laws targeted Quakers and Mennonites but also former Tories.)

The book points out that the Anti-Federalist coalition split when the plebeians resorted to violence. The Carlisle riots and their violent aftermath, although a local success for the plebeians, alienated the middling and elite groups within the coalition, making them more prone to compromise with the Federalists. When Anti-Federalists of all sorts joined the Democratic-Republican societies (and hence found themselves in alliance with Jeffersonites), the same thing occurred in the aftermath of the Whiskey Rebellion. The plebeians supported the rebellion, even calling on the rebels to secede from the United States, while the middling group, now in alliance with Jefferson and Madison, got cold feet. The elite group, ironically, could avert a whiskey rebellion in Kentucky by sabotaging the federal persecutions of tax-evaders. In that Southern state, some of the gentry were distillers, and they naturally packed the court system to insure that nobody (not even plebeian tax-evaders) were persecuted.

"The Other Founders" isn't a book for the general public. It presupposes a high degree of foreknowledge about the American Revolution on the part of the reader. Many key terms such as "Old Whig" ,"republicanism" or "originalism" are never defined. Also, the style is tedious, boring and frequently repetitive. A large part of the book analyzes the strategy of the different factions in the public sphere (read the press). In other words, the book is a typical scholarly tome!

Did I mind? Well, a more lively styled could have helped. Also, I would have appreciated more emphasis on the class conflicts and less on the newspapers. Still, I found the book interesting and informative, especially the first section on pre-ratification Anti-Federalism and the section dealing with the Whiskey Rebellion.

Recommended for serious students of the American Revolution and political science in general.

_The Other Founders_ by Saul Cornell provides a good overview of a unique American political tradition which began in opposition to the ratification of the Constitution. Antifederalists opposed the Constitution on different grounds, including especially the need for a Bill of Rights ammendment. Antifederalists also came to emphasize the rights of states and localism within government, opposing the strong centralizing tendencies within the Constitution and which existed after the Constitution was ratified. Individuals such as Jefferson and Madison came to embrace certain aspects of the Antifederalist tradition in their opposition to the centralizing tendencies of Hamilton, who proposed to create among other things a centralized banking system. Many of the original Antifederalists feared the influence of a large centralized government, maintaining that such a thing could lead to the promotion of an aristocracy who would operate against the interests of the common people. The tradition of Antifederalism continues to play an important part in constitutional debate today. Many have looked towards this tradition as a means for protecting the rights of states as well as Second Ammendment rights to private gun ownership from the influence of the federal government.

This is a very well written book that provides an interesting perspective on the roots of anti-federal and dissenting viewpoints from the beginnings of the United States. For better or worse, many of the views of today's militias and anti-government protesters have their roots in some of the anti-federalist currents circulating at the time of, and after, the ratification of the Constitution. Of course, the Anti-Fderalists were in the main on the losing side of the debate, but as this book shows, not entirely so, as important concessions such as the Bill of Rights, were made to them, and important currents of their thinking have continued as strong themes in American politics to this day.

In reading The Other Founders, one gets the impression that our political system is bound to be confusing and contradictory. Saul Cornell does a superb job in putting the views and opinions of those who originally opposed the constitution into a cohesive and understandable thesis. He identifies those who were known as the "Anti-Federalists" for their fears of big government and a government dominated by the wealthy for their own purposes. These so-called "other founders" put pen to paper to express their views.

Working simultaneous to the Anti-Federalists, were the Federalists. Their names are better known to most Americans and were dominated by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Hamilton never waivered from his original views, but Madison did. Madison teameed with Thomas Jefferson to form the Democratic-Republican party that sought to strengthen states and individual rights and freedoms.

The many authors of the original dissenters, the Anti-Federalists, were quickly lost because their writings were so focused on the immediate ratification of the Constitution. But once the Constitution became effective, and the Bill of Rights was added to appease the fears of the Anti-Federalists, American political life did not just settle down and become what we have in place today. Quite the contrary, this is the period where things became really interesting.

Whenever some national crisis emerged, the Whiskey Rebellion, Jay Treaty, and Alien and Sedition Acts, being those issues from the 1790s, people attempted to base their opinions on the constitutional debates. Writers of either side, pro or con to an issue, would borrow from the writings of the Federalist Papers of dig up Anti-Federalist writings. Both sides would attempt to employ these writings to justify their position, regardless of original intent. When debate over the national bank, especially after the McCullough vs. Maryland Supremem Court decision, consitutional debate reached a fever pitch.

Saul Cornell addresses these many diverse cases with skill and clarity. He alludes to how these debates eventually lead to the election of Andrew Jackson and even the Civil War. He brings his thesis forward to the Ronald Reagan years. It doesn't take much effort to extend his thesis beyond to our current health care and financial reform debates. America grows because of differing opinions.

Reading this book will enlighten people to the fact that dissent has as much of a role in American history as consensus. It might be simpler if everyone would agree on everything, but such can never realistically be the case. Saul COrnell's effort to describe the basis for such differences of opinion is very helpful in placing all American political debates into some type of context.

This book is somewhat upsetting when one realizes that today's problems with our government were predicted by the minority opinion at the dawn of our nation. Unfortunately, we will have to clean this mess up ourselves lest we dump it off on our children or grandchildren.