When the Constitution was proposed in 1787, not all the delegates were in favor, and after all the debates, not all voted to ratify; in fact, it narrowly won approval. The main problem for the detractors was that they feared substituting one top-heavy federal bureaucracy (England) with another one (The United States). The main concern? Taxation. That concern was not realized until the Civil War, and then not again until FDR gave us entitlement spending and LBJ even more of it. But now we are deep in it. Our debt is rising above GDP as I am writing these words.
The most vocal of the critics of the new constitution was the Patriot Patrick Henry. He was an anti-federalist to the core, and did everything he could to prevent ratification. That fact has left many historians with a “Yeah, but” assessment of the redoubtable Henry. But in light of our national debt situation, maybe it is time for a new look at Henry’s anti-federalism, and what it might say to our borrow-and-spend-bender Congress, on both sides of the aisle. Thomas Kidd of Baylor has provided that for us, both in the form of a short article with the Acton Institute and a brand new book on Henry.
For the article go here: Patrick Henry Warned Us about Extravagant Government
For a link to his new book go here: Patrick Henry: First among Patriots
I think you will find Dr. Kidd’s work to be arresting!
Chad Owen Brand