The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828 (review)

292 Rhetoric & Public Affairs social order as being fundamentally flawed. And by contextualizing current controversies as embodiments of the long-standing tension between liberalism and republicanism , Fowler reaches back beyond the New Deal equation of liberalism with activist government. At most, it is that equation the past 30 years have contested (and even that is in doubt), not the fundamental appeal of liberalism itself. David Zarefsky Northwestern University The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 17881828 . By Saul Cornell. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999. $19.95 paper. The Anti-Federalists have finally "arrived." Within the last 20 years, numerous books and articles have been written about their importance as political thinkers and activists, and leading politicians and jurists have invoked their writings to support such doctrines as federalism and an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. No longer are the Anti-Federalists viewed as "men of little faith" who, in comparison to the Federalists, distrusted government and lacked vision and ability . With The Other Founders, Saul Cornell now adds to the list of works affirming the genius and influence of the Anti-Federalists. What, if anything, makes The Other Founders distinctive and important? First is its scope. It presents not only a detailed interpretation of Anti-Federalism as a whole but also an account of its influence on American politics and thought until the middle of the nineteenth century. Thus, the book does not focus on the "best" of the Anti-Federalist writings. Indeed, it is not limited to writings, but emphasizes that such events as the Carlisle riot of 1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 were symbolic expressions of certain Anti-Federalist ideas. In presenting a sweeping account of Anti-Federalism, the book also cites and discusses an impressive array of recent scholarship on the movement. The Other Founders, however, is not an exhaustive account of Anti-Federalism. For obvious, practical reasons, Cornell does not analyze every piece of AntiFederalist writing or even every writer. Instead, he picks those that are most representative , i.e., were most influential in their time. Specifically, Cornell bases his interpretation of Anti-Federalism on those writings that were reprinted and thus circulated the most, and this is the second distinctive aspect of his book. To show what these writings were, Cornell has two appendices listing, according to the number of times they were republished, nearly all of the Anti-Federalist writings that were republished at least once. This alone is a very valuable contribution to the scholarship on Anti-Federalism. A third distinctive feature of The Other Founders is its balanced and nuanced treatment of Anti-Federalism. Cornell contends that too many previous accounts of Book Reviews 293 the movement have been one-sided stereotypes that failed to do justice to its diversity and complexity. "No group in American political history," he writes, "was more heterogeneous than the Anti-Federalists" (22). On the other hand, he says, AntiFederalism was not a cacophony of voices and views. Cornell, therefore, attempts to do justice to both the pluralism and unity of the movement. Although AntiFederalists disagreed on many issues, including republicanism vs. liberalism and agrarianism vs. commercialism, Cornell believes they can be understood best in terms of the classes that existed in early America. He, therefore, divides them into three groups—the elite, middling, and plebian Anti-Federalists—each of which tended to address its own members. These groups also differed ideologically, especially on the degree and kind of democracy they favored. The elite, such as Luther Martin and Richard Henry Lee, favored a balanced combination of natural aristocracy and democracy. Enlightened, virtuous men, both legislators and judges, were needed to understand but shape the popular will. The middling writers, using pseudonyms like Centinel, Old Whig, and Federal Farmer, also favored representative democracy, but thought that legislators should reflect the views of their constituents and that juries, not judges, should have ultimate control of trials. The plebians espoused a more radical, direct-action, and local brand of democracy. The people should speak vociferously—through local militia groups and public demonstrations, as well as the press and juries. Ironically the writings and actions of the plebians alienated the elite...