Michael:
In general, I think that your critique of the Antifederalists is correct — that if many of them had had their way, the history of liberty in America would well have been very different, and very much less rosy. But I think you may paint with too broad a brush here. Some of the Antifederalists weren’t against forming a more perfect union, including the idea of subjecting much more state power to federal constraint and control, but did not think that the document as originally written was the best deal that could be struck.
For example, while it did admittedly take a while for the problem to manifest itself, some critics of the Constitution correctly predicted that “necessary and proper” and other vague phrases might open the door to governmental expansion or malfeasance. There was also the legitimate fear, voiced successfully here in North Carolina at the first ratification convention, that approving the document without a bill of rights would pose threats to liberty over time. Of course, there was the clever Hamiltonian argument that specifying some rights in the Constitution might suggest a dimunition of others, thus being counterproductive in the defense of individual liberty, but the concern was best addressed with language like the eventual 9th and 10th amendments, plus the judicial willingness to apply them (now sadly lacking). In addition, Hamilton wasn’t really serious, I don’t think. There were already a few rights specified in the original text (bill of attainder, etc.), for example, so his argument was not unique to tacking on a bill of rights. He just didn’t want to constrain federal power in another formal sense, let’s face it.
On balance, I’m glad that the Federalists prevailed on the Constitution, though I wish folks had listened to some of the specific Antifederalist criticisms and insisted that more of them be addressed before approving the document. And I’m also glad that a few years later, the Democratic-Republicans came along and supplanted the Federalists.
