Constitution: Unifying Federalist And Anti-Federalist Ideals

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1788 was preceded by a debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists supported the ratification, believing that a stronger national government was necessary, while the Anti-Federalists opposed it, arguing that it gave too much power to the federal government, threatening individual liberties. The Anti-Federalists, who included small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, and labourers, wanted a weak central government and strong state governments. They also wanted a bill of rights to protect civil liberties, which the Federalists deemed unnecessary. Despite their opposition, the Anti-Federalists were unable to efficiently organize across all thirteen states and had to fight the ratification at every state convention. Eventually, the Federalists prevailed, and the Constitution was ratified and went into effect in 1789, with the addition of the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Explore related products

The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (Signet Classics)

$6.92 $8.95

Documents of Revolution: Common Sense, The Complete Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, The Articles of Confederation, The Articles of Confederation, The U. S. Constitution, The Bill of Rights

$26.99 $26.99

The Federalist & The Anti-Federalist Papers: Complete Collection: Including the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Important Documents by the Founding Fathers & more

$0.99 $20.4

The Anti-Federalist Papers (Dover Thrift Editions: American History)

$6.7 $10

The Anti-Federalist: Writings by the Opponents of the Constitution

$32.67

The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers (Hackett Classics)

$10.59 $29.95

Federalists' nationalist beliefs

The Federalists' beliefs could be described as nationalist. They were instrumental in shaping the new US Constitution in 1787, which strengthened the national government at the expense, according to the Antifederalists, of the states and the people. The Federalists called for a strong national government that promoted economic growth and friendly relationships with Great Britain, in opposition to Revolutionary France. They supported Hamilton's fiscal policies, including the funding of the old Revolutionary War debt, the assumption of state debts, and the creation of a central bank. They also supported neutrality in the war between France and Great Britain, and the Jay Treaty of 1794, which improved relations with Britain.

The Federalist Party came into being between 1789 and 1790 as a national coalition of bankers and businessmen who supported Hamilton's policies. They worked in every state to build an organized party committed to a fiscally sound and nationalistic government. The Federalists believed that the new Constitution, though not perfect, was a big improvement over the Articles of Confederation, which gave almost all power to the individual states and created a very weak central government.

The Federalists' nationalist beliefs were reflected in their support for a strong central government and their desire to replace the weaker government under the Articles of Confederation. They saw the new Constitution as a way to achieve this goal, and they were successful in shaping it to strengthen the national government. The Federalists also argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, as the Constitution did not grant the government control over the press, speech, or religion. They worried that listing all individual freedoms would be impossible and that leaving something out would create more problems.

The Federalists' nationalist beliefs and their support for a strong central government influenced their economic policies. They supported the creation of a national bank, tariffs, and government subsidies. They also believed in promoting economic growth and fostering good relationships with other nations, particularly Great Britain. These policies and beliefs shaped the Federalist Party's platform and agenda, and they controlled the national government until 1801 when they were overwhelmed by the Democratic-Republican opposition led by Thomas Jefferson.

Anti-Federalists' opposition to a stronger central government

The Anti-Federalists were a late-18th-century political movement that opposed the creation of a stronger US federal government and later opposed the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists believed that a stronger central government would threaten the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, and individuals. They advocated for a more decentralized form of government with greater protections for individual rights and stronger representation for the states. Anti-Federalists believed that almost all executive power should be left to the country's authorities, while the Federalists wanted centralized national governments.

Anti-Federalists were concerned that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy. They saw in the proposed government a new centralized and "monarchic" power in disguise that would replicate the cast-off governance of Great Britain. They also feared that the new government would be dominated by the wealthy, and felt that the states were giving up too much power to the federal government. Many Anti-Federalists preferred a weak central government because they equated a strong government with British tyranny.

Anti-Federalists believed that the rights of individuals, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press, needed to be spelled out in a Bill of Rights to safeguard them from the government. The Federalists, however, felt that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, as the Constitution did not grant the government control over these rights. Anti-Federalists also believed that the Constitution provided for a centralized rather than a federal government, and that a truly federal form of government was a leaguing of states as under the Articles of Confederation.

During the period of debate over the ratification of the Constitution, numerous independent local speeches and articles were published across the country. Initially, many of the articles in opposition were written under pseudonyms, such as "Brutus" (likely Melancton Smith) and "Centinel" (likely Samuel Bryan). The Anti-Federalists never organized efficiently across all thirteen states, and so they had to fight the ratification at every state convention. Their great success was in forcing the first Congress under the new Constitution to establish a Bill of Rights to ensure the liberties that they felt the Constitution violated.

The Bill of Rights

The Federalists, on the other hand, initially rejected the idea of a bill of rights, arguing that the new federal government had no authority to infringe on freedoms of the press or religion. They also believed that a bill of rights could be interpreted as exhaustive, and any rights not mentioned could be considered retained by the federal government. However, to address the concerns of the Anti-Federalists and ensure the ratification of the Constitution, Federalists like James Madison proposed amendments to the Constitution to protect individual liberties.

Madison, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, wrote a series of essays defending the Constitution and promoting the idea of amendments. Madison introduced twelve amendments during the First Congress in 1789, and ten of these were ratified by the states and became the Bill of Rights. These amendments gave American citizens codified individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech and the press, and addressed the concerns of both Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

Explore related products

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

$18.65 $23

The Anti-Federalist Papers Publisher: Signet Classics

$11.45 $24.99

The Complete Federalist and The Anti-Federalist Papers: The Articles of Confederation, The Constitution of Declaration, All Bill Of Rights & Amendments (Part 4)

$7.49

The Anti-Federalist Papers

$10.95

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788: A Library of America Boxed Set

$79.05 $85

The Anti-Federalist Papers

$0.99 $15.99

The Federalist Papers

The Anti-Federalist Papers, written by a variety of authors using pseudonyms such as "Brutus" and "Federal Farmer", failed to halt the ratification of the Constitution. However, they succeeded in influencing the first assembly of the United States Congress to draft the Bill of Rights. The Federalist Papers, on the other hand, were successful in lobbying for the adoption of the Constitution, which took effect in 1789.

The differences between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were vast and complex, and the debate between the two groups shaped the early political landscape of the United States. The Federalist Papers, as a collection of essays advocating for the ratification of the Constitution, played a significant role in this debate and continue to be studied as an important historical document.

The need for a new constitution

The new Constitution aimed to establish a strong federal government, addressing the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. However, this shift towards centralization sparked a debate between two factions: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists supported the new Constitution, believing it was necessary to strengthen the national government and address the weaknesses of the Articles. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the new Constitution, arguing that it took too much power away from the states and the people, potentially threatening individual liberties.

The Anti-Federalists, including small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers, favored strong state governments, a weak central government, direct elections, short term limits for officeholders, and enhanced individual liberties. They believed that Americans' freedoms were better protected by state governments rather than a distant national government.

The Federalists, on the other hand, held more nationalist beliefs. They argued that the Constitution provided a system of checks and balances, ensuring that no single branch or person could become too powerful. They also disagreed with the need for a Bill of Rights, asserting that the Constitution did not grant the government control over areas like freedom of speech, religion, or the press.

The ratification process required nine out of thirteen states to approve the Constitution for it to take effect. Despite their differences, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists reached a compromise, leading to the adoption of the Constitution in 1788, which went into effect in 1789. The Anti-Federalists' influence resulted in the addition of the Bill of Rights in 1791, ensuring the protection of Americans' civil liberties.

Frequently asked questions