Federalist Opposition: Was The Constitution Flawed From The Start?

The Federalists were supporters of the US Constitution, but they faced opposition from the Anti-Federalists, who did not want the US Constitution to go into effect. The Federalists believed that the nation might not survive without the passage of the Constitution and that a stronger national government was necessary. They argued that the separation of powers among the three branches of government protected the rights of the people. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government, taking away power from state and local governments. They also wanted a bill of rights to be included in the Constitution, guaranteeing protection for certain basic liberties such as freedom of speech and trial by jury. The Federalists eventually prevailed, and the US Constitution was ratified in 1788, with the Bill of Rights added in 1791.

Explore related products

What the Anti-Federalists Were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution

$18.65 $23

The U.S. Constitution and Other Writings (Leather-bound Classics)

$13.21 $24.99

The Anti-Federalist Writings of the Melancton Smith Circle

$14.5 $29

Anti Federalist Papers

$19.95

The Federalist

$14.5

The Federalist Papers (Dover Thrift Editions: American History)

$6.46 $8

Federalists believed the nation might not survive without the Constitution

The Federalists believed that the nation might not survive without the passage of the Constitution, and that a stronger national government was necessary after the failed Articles of Confederation. They argued that the Constitution provided a system of checks and balances, where each of the three branches is able to check or limit the other branches. Federalists asserted that the national government only had the powers specifically granted to it under the Constitution, and was prohibited from certain actions.

The Federalists felt that the new federal courts were necessary to provide checks and balances on the power of the other two branches of government. They believed the federal courts would protect citizens from government abuse, and guarantee their liberty. They also argued that the federal courts had limited jurisdiction, leaving many areas of the law to the state and local courts.

The Federalists were well-organised, well-funded, and made careful use of the printed word. Most newspapers supported the Federalists' political plan and published articles and pamphlets explaining why the people should approve the Constitution. The Federalists believed that the greatest threat to the future of the United States was not the abuse of central power, but the excesses of democracy, as evidenced in popular disturbances like Shays' Rebellion and the pro-debtor policies of many states.

The Federalists saw the Constitution as a way to safeguard the liberty and independence that the American Revolution had created. They argued that the document had many built-in safeguards to prevent the concentration of power. They also rejected the need for a bill of rights, arguing that the state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution were distinct, and that any listing of rights could be interpreted as exhaustive, with omitted rights not retained.

Anti-Federalists wanted a bill of rights

The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 US Constitution, fearing that the new national government would be too powerful and threaten individual liberties. They believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government, taking away power from state and local governments.

The Anti-Federalists also argued that the supremacy clause, in combination with the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses, would allow implied powers that could endanger rights. They believed that state bills of rights offered no protection from oppressive acts of the federal government because the Constitution, treaties, and laws made in pursuance of the Constitution were declared supreme.

Initially, many Federalists, including James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton, argued against the necessity of a bill of rights. They believed that the new federal government could not endanger the freedoms of the press or religion, as it was not granted any authority to regulate them. They also thought that a bill of rights could be dangerous, as any listing of rights could be interpreted as exhaustive, and rights omitted could be considered not retained.

However, to gain the support of the Anti-Federalists, the Federalists eventually promised to add a bill of rights if the Anti-Federalists would vote for the Constitution. James Madison introduced 12 amendments during the First Congress in 1789, and 10 of these were ratified by the states in 1791, becoming the Bill of Rights.

Federalists argued the Constitution provided a system of checks and balances

The Federalists supported the ratification of the US Constitution, which was written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. They argued that the Constitution provided a system of checks and balances, with each of the three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—able to check or limit the powers of the other branches.

Federalists believed that by dividing the government into separate branches, the Constitution provided balance and prevented the potential for tyranny. They asserted that each branch of government would be dependent on the people, who were the source of legitimate authority, and that the document had many built-in safeguards to limit the power of the government.

James Madison, in Federalist No. 51, defended the checks and balances system in the Constitution. He explained that each branch of government was designed to have its own power to check the power of the other two branches. Madison also discussed how a republican government could serve as a check on the power of factions and the tyranny of the majority. He believed that the larger the society, the more capable it would be of self-government, and that the federal principle could be effectively applied to the United States.

Madison also emphasized the importance of giving those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments by other branches. He famously stated, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place." The Constitution, therefore, includes features such as bicameralism, the presidential veto, and the Senate's role in appointments and treaties, which all serve as checks and balances on the different branches of government.

The Federalists' arguments for the system of checks and balances in the Constitution were in response to the Anti-Federalists' concerns. The Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution granted too much power to the federal government, taking away power from state and local governments. They also worried that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights, which they believed was necessary to protect certain basic liberties, such as freedom of speech and trial by jury.

Explore related products

The Federalist Papers (Signet Classics)

$7.23 $8.95

The Federalist Papers: Large Print Unabridged 1787 Original Version

$27.99

The Federalist Papers, Extended Edition: An Essential Collection of The Original, Unabridged Text (1787–88) With Detailed Commentary on Each Essay to Guide you Through America's Founding Ideas

$24.95

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99

The Federalist

$24.28 $30

The Federalist Papers Made Easier: The Complete and Original Text Subdivided and Annotated for Easier Understanding

$24.95

Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government

The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 US Constitution, arguing that it gave too much power to the federal government at the expense of states' and individuals' rights. They believed that the new national government would be too powerful and threaten individual liberties, particularly given the absence of a bill of rights.

Anti-Federalists, including small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, and labourers, favoured strong state governments, a weak central government, and the direct election of government officials. They believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments rather than a federal one. They also believed that the unitary president eerily resembled a monarch, and that the federal government's powers to tax could be used to exploit citizens and weaken the power of the states.

The Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution, as drafted, would lead to a loss of individual liberties, an erosion of state sovereignty, and the potential for tyranny. They advocated for a more decentralised form of government with greater protections for individual rights and stronger representation for the states. They believed that the states should be significantly autonomous and independent in their authority, applying the right to self-administration in all significant internal matters without the unwanted interjections of the federal government.

The Federalists, on the other hand, argued that the Constitution provided a system of checks and balances, where each of the three branches could limit the power of the other branches. They also believed that the national government only had the powers specifically granted to it and that a stronger national government was necessary after the failed Articles of Confederation.

Federalists wanted a stronger central government

The Federalists were supporters of the proposed Constitution, believing that a stronger central government was necessary. They saw their most important role as defending the social gains of the Revolution. The Federalist leaders, including Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington, favoured the Constitution. They were well-organised, well-funded, and made careful use of the printed word to spread their message.

The Federalists wanted a strong central government with a strong executive branch. They believed that the nation might not survive without the passage of the Constitution, and that a stronger national government was necessary after the failed Articles of Confederation. They argued that the Constitution provided a system of checks and balances, where each of the three branches could limit the power of the other branches, preventing tyranny.

The Federalists also rejected the need for a Bill of Rights, which the Anti-Federalists strongly desired. They believed that the Constitution was efficient enough without one and that a bill of rights was unnecessary and perhaps even dangerous. They argued that the state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution were distinct, and that the people had delegated to the state all rights and powers not explicitly reserved for the federal government.

The Federalists' support for a strong central government was influenced by the political context of the 1780s. Traditional beliefs of the Revolutionary Era held that strong centralised authority would lead to an abuse of power. The Federalists recognised that the country's problems at the time stemmed from a weak central government created by the Articles of Confederation. They saw the Constitution as a way to safeguard the liberty and independence that the American Revolution had brought about.

Frequently asked questions