Federalists vs Antifederalists US history

Clearly not a full answer to your question but this is a short extract from an article on the American Revolution from the ICC's website:

"‘Shays’ Rebellion’ directly influenced the debate on a new US Constitution, finally convincing anti-federalist elements in the American bourgeoisie of the need for a strong central government fully equipped to suppress insurrections of the poor.

In the wake of the uprising the federalist wing of the bourgeoisie (Madison, Hamilton, Jay) argued for a strong republic as a “barrier against domestic faction and insurrection”, seeing clearly that given the inevitable division of society into “those who hold and those who are without property” the principal task of the state was to manage the resulting class conflicts. Far from being a weakness, as anti-federalists argued, the large size of the new republic would make it even more difficult for incipient rebellions to unify:

“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. […] A rage for paper money, for the abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union…” (Federalist No. 10, 1787)

The resulting Constitution was thus not only designed to protect the interests of the rich, but was part of a conscious strategy by the most far-sighted faction of the American bourgeoisie to prevent future internal threats to the rule of capital from “those without property”."

(http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201402/9461/birth-american-democracy-tyranny-tyranny)

("...or for any other improper or wicked project..." :-))

Good points, Marky. I think they were debates between the more aristocratic landholders and the emerging bourgeoisie that often took somewhat differently to the problems facing poor farmers and laborers. That's a foggy recollection.

I did read this essay recently that I think is pretty neat, called The Influences of Pennsylvania's
1776 Constitution on American Constitutionalism During the Founding Decade.

The Pennsylvania state constitution

... followed Paine's recommendation
and established a "simple" government. Under the frame of govern-
ment, legislative power resided in a unicameral assembly 15 (often
attributed to Benjamin Franklin's influence, 16 but no doubt also an
extension of Pennsylvania's familiarity with a unicameral legislature
dating from Williaixi Penn's Charter of Privileges of 1701). There
were virtually no checks on the Assembly, such as veto power, given
to the weak, albeit elected, plural executive (headed by a "president"
chosen by the Assembly), or the judiciary. Members of the Supreme
Court, although appointed for a seven-year term at a fixed salary,
could be removed by the legislature at any time for "misbehavior."
The constitution contained provisions aimed at making the Assembly
an open deliberative body accountable to the voters. The proceedings
of the Assembly were open to the public. Legislators served one-year
terms, and could serve no more than four out of seven years. Most
bills had to be printed and distributed to the public, and then enacted
by the next successive legislative session before becoming law. Such
provisions, except for rotation in office, were virtually unknown in
other state constitutions of the period. 17
The constitution established the principle of apportionment by "thenumber of taxable inhabitants," with regular reapportionment. Prop-
erty requirements for voting were eliminated, with the much broader
requirement that a voter pay taxes substituted in its place. 18 Finally,
a Council of Censors was to be elected by the people every seven
years to review legislative actions for conformity "to the principles
of the constitution," and to propose amendments to the constitution. 19
This review mechanism had been recommended in several of the
pamphlets published prior to the constitutional convention. 20
The "democrats" who supported the constitution knew that a un-
icameral legislature was susceptible to vices, but in the words of Jesse
Lemisch, they sought through the constitution's required popular
participation to "check it from below—with more democracy—rather
than from above, with less."

Yes, I think your quote shows clearly there were real differences and tensions in the American bourgeoisie at the time; the extract I quoted may have given the impression that somehow these tensions - federalist/anti-federalist - were permanently resolved in order to deal with the class struggle. Given that the bourgeoisie - especially the northern mercantile class - fought the revolution precisely in order to secure its political autonomy, it's not surprising it remained highly suspicious of any perceived centralising threat to this. Also, they had mobilised the artisans and skilled workers as a spearhead for their national liberation struggle and the workers had their own more radical ideas. People like the Tea Party obviously tap into this anti-federalist strand today - they just don't seem to understand the capitalist need for a strong central state in order to deal with the class struggle!

Yeah the democratic party was the rulling class party once and the republican party was once the party for the man on the floor.

Abrahim Lincoln said this once

The full quote is here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-grayson/lincoln-congress-speech-_b_1127058.html

But then he got assasinated so that was the end of that

He was a republican federalist. The main cause for the republican party back in the days was to oppose slavery.

The main cause was opposition to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by which slavery was kept out of Kansas. The Northern Republicans saw the expansion of slavery as a great evil.

Democratic party was once for racism and traditionally had a lot of voters in the south but then in the 60ies or so they shifted policy.

Then the republican became the party for low taxes...

The Pigeon

So what kind of revolutionary potential did Shays Rebellion embody?

I think Shays' Rebellion was an expression of the struggle of small independent producers against the attempts of the American state to subject them to capitalist authority and brutally integrate them into commodity production. As such we can see it as an attempt to defend a previous, pre-capitalist stage of development, but it was certainly well-organised and for a while proved very difficult for the US bourgeoisie to put down...