The Anti-Federalists Were Right

It is taken as gospel in our country by both the political Left and Right that the Constitution, to one degree or another, is the greatest thing since sliced bread. However, I recently read about some of the concerns from those opposed to the original signing, who were known as the Anti-Federalists. What I read gave me chills up spine:

From the Introduction to "The Constitution of the Unites States with the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation", by R.B. Bernstein

Anti-Federalists insisted that the Convention exceeded its mandate by writing a new Constitution instead of revising the Articles.

Anti-Federalists feared that the general government would swallow up the states, destroying the people's right of self-government.

Anti-Federalists denounced the Constitution's system of representation as inadequate. They mocked the House of Representatives and the Senate as too small by comparison with the large state legislatures. They argued that this unjust scheme of representation would limit service in Congress to powerful, wealthy men.

Anti-Federalists, distrusting the Presidency, charged that the President was not accountable, that impeachment was too difficult to use against him, and that he would work to ensure his repeated re-election for life.

Anti-Federalists denounced federal courts as unnecessary and expensive. They worried that federal courts would swallow up state courts, wiping out distinctions between state laws and leaving the people subject to a tyrannous federal bench.

Anti-Federalists found the Constitution's lack of a bill of rights their most powerful argument.

Anti-Federalists objected to the clause authorizing a permanent capital, which would become a citadel where the people's enemies would shelter themselves against the people's wrath.

New England Anti-Federalists denounced the Constitution's ban on religious tests for voting or holding office, fretting that a Jew, a Turk, or an infidel could become President.

Anti-Federalists in New England also denounced the Constitution's slavery clauses...

Reviewing these objections over the last 200+ years, taking them in order, we have Maybe, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes - even after the Bill of Rights was added it apparently didn't go far enough, Yes, I'm Not Going There, and Darn Yes.

Of course, each of these objections had very intelligent, possibly very well meaning retorts by the Federalists, which of course won the day. They also happened to be all very wrong. At the least, they were proven wrong over time.

But I hold out the possibility that it worked better than any other system for longer than any other system, until we have gotten to the point we are at today, which is right where Great Britain was back in 1776. Still, I think there is an even better possibility that a revised Articles of Confederation would have worked its way through the immediate crises of the time, and saved us all a lot of pain.

But what's to say that other Americans wouldn't have grabbed at power again when the next crisis hit, as they have for the last 200 years? We have a chance every 2 years to reduce the power of the Federal government, and I'm hard pressed to find more than 2 years in the last 200 where it actually happened. This is akin to going back to the Garden of Eden and trying to stop Adam and Eve from eating the fruit. Eventually, they were going to get a good bite!