Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist Papers cont.

I would suggest that both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers are improperly named, because what both were afraid of was nationalism, where the power of the States to participate independently in congress was denied, and the Anti-Federalist were advocating to retain and reinforce Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation;

[Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.]

They also were arguing for a Bill of Rights to put constraints of the power of the Federal Government established by the Constitution of the United States to protect these rights of sovereignty and suffrage of the States in congress to participate in making laws and treaties and prevent the Federal Government from making laws which would have to be complied with by the States which superseded the States own laws. This was particularly directed at the abolishment of slavery, where some States had already abolished slavery, but if slavery was allowed to continue by federal laws, then that State would have to allow slavery against their will, the same was true of taxation, because it was seen that congress could dictate the assessment of taxes for things that a State would not have any control over, forcing taxation in their State’s also against their will.

I haven’t taken time to determine when these arguments were made in relation to when the Constitution of the United States was drafted and agreed to by the States before ratification, but I’m certain that the Federalist Papers were largely written to address those fears to ensure every State that the new government would definitely be a Confederation of Republics and that each State would retain their sovereignty and independent representation and suffrage in congress just as they enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation.

But here’s the rub, they anticipated the improper consolidation of the States into a simple republic, a national government which removed State sovereignty and participation in congress, and they considered the constitution as a wolf in sheep’s clothing where on one hand they presented the new government as a Confederation of Republics, but in actuality it was only a precursor to a consolidated national government, which in hindsight was a valid and appropriate concern, given how the government was improperly consolidated into a national government with all State participation was removed and the States became subservient to a National government disconnected from the States.

I’m not going to sit here and pretend I know what the agenda was at that time to consolidate the government into a simple republic, a national government, but what I can say is that the way they wrote the Constitution of the United States that they took great care to prevent that from happening, and if it did ever happen, as it has today, the mechanisms to restore the Government established by the Constitution of the United States is also established in the Constitution of the United States, all we need do is have the awareness and will to reverse the improper consolidation and usurpation which devolved our governing system into a National Government.