solutely unlike that of the Federahsts.nThe members of that majority had nonpatience with the idea of the teleocraticnstate, even if some version of union was,nas they recognized, inevitable. For theynknew, as Archibald Maclaine insisted beforenthe entire convention, that it wasn”impossible for any man in his senses tonthink that we [North Carolinians] cannexist by ourselves, separated from ournsister states.” Even so, North CarolinanAntifederalists, in giving a vigorous rebuffnto the idea of an instrumental state,nset lasting limits on the ‘meaning of thenConstitution they did not yet approve.nFor North Carolina Federalists declarednthat their opponents were being offerednjust what they (ostensibly) desired. ThenAntifederalists thought otherwise.nSamuel Spencer, speaking for thesenreluctant Framers, said of the Constitutionnthat “it apparently looks forward tona consolidation of the government of thenUnited States, when the state legislaturenmay entirely decay away.” WilliamnGoody in the same cause declares thatnthe disposition of the Constitution “tondestroy state government must be clearnto every man of common understanding.”nAnd there is more of the same sortnof language from Timothy Bloodworth,nthe Reverend Caldwell, and others. Innresponding to such charges, Federalistsnfound an agenda for their own politicalnspeech and were thus restrained fromnconstruing the Constitution as anythingnmore ambitious than what the Antifederalistsnwere saying they were ready tonaccept. Their rhetoric resembled thatnof the Virginia Federalists just as then.^i^::^nJust complete and mail the adjoiningncoupon with your check or money order,nand we’ll promptly send each recipient angift card in your name.nTO ORDER BY PHONEnCALL TOLL FREEn50/CHRONICLESn1-800-877-5459nspeech of their opponents calls up annimage of the Virginia Antifederalists whonwere fully visible in the amendments tonthe Constitution proposed in Richmondnand then proposed again in Hillsborough.nOne of these suggested changes sentnout to the other states by a recalcitrantnNorth Carolina is, given the original rejectionnof the Reverend Caldwell’s proposalnthat they begin with a Declarationnof Rights, surprising. For such a list isnrecommended to the rest of the countrynalong with North Carolina’s “great refusal”nto accept the plan of governmentnproposed: recommended to the attentionnof the general government as anmaxim to be considered in the framingnof its laws and policies. And the list beginsnwith a statement about the equalitynof all men (citizens) “when they form ansocial compact.” Making this statementnall the more puzzling is the fact thatnNorth Carolinians had said nothingnabout the rights of man or equality inndrawing up their original state constitution—anstatement concerning thenground rules in their relations with onenanother. But the contradiction here isnonly apparent: consistent with NorthnCarolina’s internal agreement on thensubject of rights, its devotion to libertynand its fear of an indifferent, potentiallynhostile, or presumptuous national authority—ofnpower not directly responsivento a local source.nTalk of rights in the HillsboroughnConvention meant that its membersnwere agreed in making the value ofnlimited government the fundamentalnpremise of their exchanges. Even songood a Federalist as General Davie declared,n”whatever might affect the statesnin their political capacity ought to benleft to them.” The Bill of Rights, Antifederalistsnhoped, would protect citizenshipnin North Carolina from the dangernof a federal definition. Contrary tonProfessor Michael Lienesch, the antagonistsndebating ratification in North Carolinandiffered on how best to have statenand local responsibility for personalnrights, limited government and sufficientnfederal power, not over whether thesenwere worthwhile concerns. With a Declarationnof Rights restricting the notionnof federal protection for positive rights,nthe old idea of corporate liberty survivednamong them. But only so long as it wasnthe general government that was restrained—sonlong as the rest of the.nUnion was forewarned by Carolina’snunited refusal to ratify that no expansivennonsense would be tolerated. AtnHillsborough the perennial problem ofnAmerican politics got a thorough hearing:nthe conviction that as a people wencannot live at ease either with or withoutna national government and therefore willnbe forever at odds about which side ofnthis antithesis we should prefer to emphasizenin our own time.nM.E. Bradford is a professor of Englishnat the University of Dallas. Thisnarticle is excerpted from his forthcomingnbook, Original Intentions: On thenMaking and Ratification of the U.S.nConstitution (University of GeorgianPress).nA. Chronicles Gift Subscription has long been a popular choice as angift for family and friends. And now, our special rates make givingnChronicles a considerable value, too. Give a one-year subscription tonChronicles for only $24—you save $6 or 20% off the cover price.nFOREIGN ORDERS ADD S6 PER SUBSCRIPTION. U.S. t^NDS ONLY. CHRONICLES SELLS FOR $2.50 A COPY.nSEND TO: CHRONICLES • PO. BOX 800 • MT MORRIS. IL 61054nnn