that federal courts would obliterate thenjurisdiction of state laws and judges.nMoreover, federal justice would be bothnhard to reach and expensive. SamuelnSpencer feared “clashing and animosities”nbetween state and federal courts.nOaths of officeholders promising to upholdnthe Constitution he thought wouldneventually result in consolidation. Andnwithout a statement in the Constitutionnreserving to the states all powers not explicitlynsurrendered to federal authority,nhe wanted to see a bill of rights attached—onenof the old kind whichnrestrained Leviathan, not citizens ornstates.nThough they agreed with RichardnDobbs Spaight that “no government cannexist without a judiciary to enforce itsnlaws,” Antifederalists also objected tonthe Supremacy Clause because theynwere uncertain about how far it mightnreach. Speaking for them, TimothynBloodworth observed concerning thenprovision for a federal judiciary in thenConstitution, “It is a total repeal of everynact and constitution of the states. Thenjudges are sworn to uphold it. It willnproduce an abolition of the state governments.nIts sovereignty absolutely annihilatesnthem.” Antifederalists also dislikednthe omission from the Philadelphianinstrument of a provision for trial by jurynin civil cases—even though Federalistsngave them a good explanation of why itnwas impossible to do otherwise. NorthnCarolina Antifederalists foresaw judicialnimperialism far more cleady than theirncounterparts in the other states. In thisnparticular, history has made them intonprophets. Federalist responses to theirnobjections to ratification also specifiednthat these “friends of the Constitution”nthought no better of lawmaking by thencourts than their opponents did. Speakingnfor them, Archibald Maclaine declared,n”The federal court has jurisdictionnonly in some instances. There arenmany instances in which no court butnthe state courts can have any jurisdictionnwhatsoever, except where partiesnclaim land under the grant of differentnstates, or the subject of dispute arisesnunder the Constitution itself. The statencourts have exclusive jurisdiction overnevery other possible controversy that cannarise between the inhabitants of theirnown states; nor can the federal courtsnintermeddle with such disputes, eithernoriginally or by appeal.” Maclaine sonread the law, both because he wished itnto be so and because he expected hisnadversaries to be satisfied by such a statenof affairs, given their expressed preferences.nConcerning religion and the state,nAntifederalists emphasized the secularizingnand irreligious effects of a lack ofntests for officeholders under Article VI.nJames Iredell’s response to their concernsnwas the most distinguished andnthoughtful of his many contributions tonthese North Carolina debates. The mennof the backcountry wanted no Anglicannestablishment. But neither did theynwish to see the United States as less thannan openly Christian nation: a Protestant,nChristian nation. They did not expectnto allow Roman Catholics into the highestnoffices. But, in particular, they fearednan influx of pagans, unbelievers, deists,nand “Mahometans.” Henry Abbott, anBaptist elder from Anson, thought thatnsuch immigration coupled with a treatyncalling for the establishment of a “foreign”nfaith might deprive the people ofntheir religious freedom. For this reasonnAbbott and his allies thought prohibitionnof religious tests of officeholdersnimpolitic. What made the idea of suchna treaty with a Roman Catholic powernplausible was the memory of an agreementnbetween King Charles II of Englandnand Louis XIV of France, the SunnKing; that memory, and a network ofnold fears and resentments coming downnfrom the Reformation.nConfronting these emotions. JudgenIredell drew upon British history tondemonstrate that nothing was impliednin the exclusion of religious tests but anhope of keeping the national governmentnwithin the necessary boundariesnof restraint and away from the bad examplenof “establishment,” British style.nIn his summary statement he declaresnthat “had Congress undertaken to guarantynreligious freedom, or any particularnspecies of it, they would have had anpretence to interfere in a subject theynhave nothing to do with.” The lack of anguarantee in the Constitution concerningnfreedom of religion Iredell thus convertedninto a protection of such freedom—annice inversion of the case for anbill of rights. Furthermore, Antifederalistsnwere told that if North Caroliniansncould preserve a properly Christianncommunity among themselves, onlynChristians would choose to join withnthem in moving into their state. Clearly,nthey did not wish to institute a confessionalnstate. But they were uncomfortablenwith change in mattersnnnreligious—as in all other matters. Andnespecially with change engendered bynpowers remote, unresponsive, and potentiallynunfriendly.nWith this series of questions deployednand answered, the universe of discourseninhabited by members of the HillsboroughnConvention is defined. But thenartificiality of this debate-for-the-recordnevaporated as it unfolded, so that beforenWillie Jones—after a week of discussionnand a conclusion of the exchangenon religion—moved the question, it hadnbecome a very serious discussion of thenlargest political issues involved in thenchoice for or against ratification. Afternlistening to certain antifederal nonsensenof what might happen, thanks to the existencenof new powers. Judge Iredell declared,n”Sir, it is impossible to treat suchnidle fears with any degree of gravity.”nMaclaine supported him by asking, “Is itnpossible for any common understandingnor sense to put this construction uponn[the Constitution] ?” But in reacting tonthe overall thrust of the North Carolinanratification convention, Iredell also acknowledgednthat there were deeply feltnand reasonable concerns underneath thenentire Antifederalist argument—anxietiesnhe was obliged to address becausenthey reflected the loftiest of Americannpolitical values, uncompromised by socialnor practical considerations. Speakingnwith admiration of the Antifederalistncommunity that fought him all the waynon ratification, Iredell affirmed, “I believenthe passion for liberty is strongernin America than in any other country innthe world. The North Carolina Federalists,neven though they had several objectivesnin reforming government thatnwent beyond what was acceptable tontheir Antifederalist opponents, agreednwith them about protecting liberty.nTherefore, they responded to their announcednconcerns as well as the Constitutionnwould allow, minimizing hownstrong a government ratification wouldnmake; attaching a reading to the documentnof no value to inventive modernnjudges. In other words, they understoodnfar better than local-minded opponentsnthat the “general ground of the objectionsnseems to be that the power proposednto the general government maynbe abused.” Such was the crux of thenNorth Carolina ratifying convention.nFor what the Federalists faced in Hillsborough,nas some commentators on thenevent still fail to recognize, was the oldnRegulator spirit, a political temper ab-nJULY 1992/49n