The Anti-Federal Appropriation

Abstract

The Anti-Federalists lost the battle to defeat the Constitution but won back through interpretation what they lost in constitutional construction. To counter Anti-Federalists’ accurate depictions of the proposed constitution as one that would radically alter the existing regime, The Federalist adopted a rhetorical structure that facilitated an opposing political tradition layered over the constitutive logic of the Constitution. Our analysis of the developmental logic embedded in founding political thought, the rhetoric used to defend that political logic, and the subsequent appropriation of Federalist rhetoric by the losers of this debate illustrates the mutual dependence of American political development and political thought. The ratification of the US Constitution was a stunning Federalist political victory both in the extent of the political transformation that it set in motion and in the extraordinary number of obstacles that needed to be overcome along the way. And it was a thoroughgoing loss for those who wished to preserve the previous regime. Faced with deep and broad skepticism about strengthening national government power, Federalists nonetheless secured ratification for a Constitution that sought that very end. How? Over the entire ratification campaign, the Federalists developed an ability to allay the fears of ordinary citizens that the proposed change would be too much to bear. They overcame the natural and normal conservative responses of a citizenry faced with a new and unfamiliar proposal in a time fraught with uncertainty. One can see this assuaging strategy in the most basic framing of the constitutional debate—the naming of the two partisan positions. The Federalists chose their own name as well as the label of their opponents: the “AntiFederalists” did not choose this name for themselves. Unlike the Philadelphia