The Other Founders

Saul Cornell. The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism & the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1999.

Cornell argues that while "the structure of American was crafted by the Federalists, the spirit of American politics has more often been inspired by the Anti-Federalists." (1) This is a sweeping claim, which he repeats at the end of the book (where he credits Martin Van Buren for this formulation). As the subtitle implies, Anti-Federalism as a movement was an active, and self-consciously oppositional, factor in American politics for several decades after the ratification of the Constitution. During that time period, a varied group of writers and politicians created a vibrant and varied body of writing based on a broadly-shared commitment to resisting a highly-centralized ("consolidated") national government.

Anti-Federalism during the ratification process included three distinct groups: elite, middling, and plebian. A shared commitment to resisting ratification, and an ability to read different things into similar language (a commitment to "liberty" could mean very different things to a wealthy, slave-owning plantation owner than to journeyman tanner in western Pennsylvania) allowed these three groups to work together to a degree. The same ambiguity in meaning also meant that texts could be used and read by others in a manner neither intended nor understood by the author.

Cornell argues that this diversity has confused historians and scholars, and was part of the reason why the Anti-Federalists were relatively marginalized in American history for so long. But he argues that "Weighting texts according to their influence in their time, however, reveals a clear, consistent Anti-Federalist critique." (10) Such a reading reveals a much more cohesive vision; one which quite consistently claimed to be a genuinely 'federal' ideology committed to a balance of power between more democratic state governments and a strictly and explicitly limited national government. This vision was made of "three components: federalism, constitutional textualism, and support for a vigorous public sphere of political debate." (11)

The book is divided in three parts. Part I considers the original ratification debate. Cornell considers the importance of rhetoric as well as how texts were read and shared, and by whom. He also contrasts the stances of elite Anti-Federalists with those of the middling and plebian sorts. The latter two groups had much common ground, but plebian support for the Carlisle riot (in which Anti-Federalist mobs threatened and harassed local Federalists, destroying property in the process) led to a split which created the possibility of an alliance between middling and elite Federalists--an alliance which in some ways anticipates Van Buren's Republican coalition. Resorts to mob violence, as well as radically democratic rhetoric, would continue to hamper plebian success and mitigate against an alliance with middling Anti-Federalists.

Part II details how the language, rhetoric, and arguments of Anti-Federalism influenced and shaped Jeffersonian Republican politics as the Republican coalition worked out the process of functioning as a loyal opposition. As Madison joined their ranks, he helped craft a "Madisonian" variant of the Anti-Federalism argument. His arguments were less radical and anti-statist than much of Anti-Federalist thought, eventually becoming something of an orthodoxy for the rising Republican Party.

In Part III, the coalition behind Anti-Federalism began to fracture in the wake of Jefferson's electoral success; the challenge of having to govern put new strains on the fractures which had been latent during years of being the party in opposition. Ultimately, some Republicans would move beyond Madison's consensus, while John C. Calhoun would ignore Anti-Federalism entirely, and craft the novel doctrine of nullification from an esoteric reading of Federalist arguments.

Anti-Federalism was finished as a coherent, self-conscious political faction, but it left a body of work which addressed many core facets of American politics and political theory; one which Americans across the entire political spectrum continue to draw on.