The Constitution's Critics: What Were They Called?

Opponents of the US Constitution, drafted in 1787, were known as Anti-Federalists. They were concerned that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government and threatened individual liberties. The Anti-Federalists were a diverse group, including those who believed that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty of the states, and those who saw the proposed government as a new form of monarchy. Their arguments influenced the formation of the Bill of Rights. The name Anti-Federalists was imposed on the group by their opponents, the Federalists, who supported the Constitution.

Explore related products

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

$18.65 $23

Chen Jiongming and the Federalist Movement: Regional Leadership and Nation Building in Early Republican China (Volume 86) (Michigan Monographs In Chinese Studies)

$60

Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia [2 volumes]

$201

Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the Transformation of the American Social Order, 1730-1840 (Published by the Omohundro Institute of Early American ... and the University of North Carolina Press)

$16.19 $29.99

Allegiance to Liberty: The Changing Face of Patriots, Militias, and Political Violence in America

$53 $58.5

For the People: American Populist Movements from the Revolution to the 1850s

$25.99 $24.95

Anti-Federalists' beliefs

The opponents of the Constitution came to be known as the Anti-Federalists. They were composed of diverse elements, including those who opposed the Constitution because they thought it threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals.

The Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution, as drafted, would lead to a loss of individual liberties, an erosion of state sovereignty, and the potential for the rise of tyranny. They advocated for a more decentralized form of government with greater protections for individual rights and stronger representation for the states. Principally, they were afraid that the national government would be too robust and would, thus, threaten states and individual rights. They believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, as opposed to a federal one.

Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution, as written, would be oppressive. They thought that the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights. They also believed that the Constitution created a presidency so powerful that it would become a monarchy. They were worried that the unitary president eerily resembled a monarch and that that resemblance would eventually produce courts of intrigue in the nation’s capital. They also believed that the Constitution provided insufficient rights in the courts (e.g., no guarantee of juries in civil cases, nor that criminal case juries be local) and would create an out-of-control judiciary.

Anti-Federalists also believed that the national government would be too far away from the people and thus unresponsive to the needs of localities. They thought that the federal government's powers to tax provided by the Constitution could be used to exploit citizens and weaken the power of the states. They also feared that Congress might seize too many powers under the necessary and proper clause and other open-ended provisions. They were also concerned that republican government could not work in a land the size of the United States.

Anti-Federalist Papers

The Anti-Federalist Papers are a collection of writings by the Founding Fathers who opposed the United States Constitution of 1787. The authors of these papers, known as Anti-Federalists, were against the creation of a stronger federal government and the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the Constitution, as drafted, would lead to a loss of individual liberties, an erosion of state sovereignty, and the potential for tyranny.

The Anti-Federalists were a diverse group, including those who thought that a stronger federal government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals. Some saw the proposed government as a new centralized and "monarchic" power, resembling the governance of Great Britain, which they had just fought a war to escape. Others feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties. Some believed that the central government under the Articles of Confederation was sufficient, while others thought that while the national government under the Articles was too weak, the government under the Constitution would be too strong.

The Anti-Federalist Papers include a series of sixteen essays published in the New York Journal from October 1787 through April 1788, as well as other writings by authors such as Cato (likely New York Governor George Clinton), Brutus (likely Melancton Smith, Robert Yates, or John Williams), Centinel (Samuel Bryan), and the Federal Farmer (either Melancton Smith, Richard Henry Lee, or Mercy Otis Warren). The essays were written under pseudonyms to protect the authors' identities and were often published first in states other than New York.

The Anti-Federalist Papers failed to halt the ratification of the Constitution, but they did influence the first assembly of the United States Congress to draft the Bill of Rights. The writings of the Anti-Federalists reflect their concerns about the concentration of power in the federal government and their desire to protect individual liberties and state sovereignty.

Loss of individual liberties

The opponents of the Constitution, known as Anti-Federalists, believed that the Constitution would lead to a loss of individual liberties. They feared that the new national government would be too powerful and threaten the rights of states and individuals.

The Anti-Federalists were a late-18th-century political movement that opposed the creation of a stronger federal government and the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. They believed that the Constitution, as drafted, would lead to a loss of individual liberties, an erosion of state sovereignty, and the potential for the rise of tyranny. They advocated for a more decentralized form of government with greater protections for individual rights and stronger state representation.

The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those who opposed the Constitution because they believed that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals. Some saw in the proposed government a new centralized and "monarchic" power that would replicate the cast-off governance of Great Britain. They believed that the unitary president eerily resembled a monarch and that this resemblance would eventually produce courts of intrigue in the nation's capital.

The Anti-Federalists also included those who simply feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties. They believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, rather than a federal one. They wanted to encourage democracy and feared a strong government dominated by the wealthy.

The Anti-Federalists' arguments influenced the formation of the Bill of Rights. In response to their demands for a bill of rights to guarantee specific liberties, the Federalists agreed to consider amendments to be added to the new Constitution. The Anti-Federalists' opposition was an important factor leading to the adoption of the First Amendment and the other nine amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Explore related products

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

$33

The Great Courses: The Great Debate: Advocates and Opponents of the American Constitution

$21.9

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

$82.68

The Constitution Decoded: A Guide to the Document That Shapes Our Nation

$12.81 $16.99

The Great Debate: Advocates and Opponents of the American Constitution

$13.09 $43.24

The Great Courses Philosophy and Intellectual History ,The Great Debate: Advocates and Opponents of the American Constitution (DVD and Book 2007 )

$25.25

Erosion of state sovereignty

The Anti-Federalists were a late-18th-century political movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. The name "Anti-Federalists" was imposed on them by their opponents, the Federalists, and was meant to mark them as men who "stood against the very political ideas they embraced".

The Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution, as drafted, would lead to an erosion of state sovereignty and the potential for the rise of tyranny. They advocated for a more decentralized form of government with greater protections for individual rights and stronger representation for the states. They believed that the new Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress, at the expense of the states. They also believed that the unitary president resembled a monarch and that this resemblance would eventually produce courts of intrigue in the nation's capital.

The Anti-Federalists' arguments created a powerful current against adopting the Constitution in each of the states. In state legislatures across the country, opponents of the Constitution argued that it granted extensive powers to the federal government and detracted from the republican governments of antiquity. They believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, as opposed to a federal one. They also believed that the national government would be too far away from the people and thus unresponsive to the needs of localities.

The Anti-Federalists' influence helped lead to the enactment of the Bill of Rights. In response to their demands, the Federalists agreed to consider amendments to be added to the new Constitution. The Anti-Federalists only became a party when the Constitution was being voted on by the states, and it ended soon after opposition to ratification ceased. However, the roots of the party went back for many years.

Rise of tyranny

The Anti-Federalists, a late-18th-century political movement, opposed the creation of a stronger US federal government and the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. They believed that the new Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress, at the expense of states, and that the unitary president resembled a monarch. They advocated for a more decentralized form of government with greater protections for individual rights and stronger representation for the states.

The Anti-Federalists' arguments created a powerful current against adopting the Constitution in each of the states. In state legislatures across the country, opponents of the Constitution railed against the extensive powers it granted the federal government and its detraction from the republican governments of antiquity. They believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, as opposed to a federal one.

The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those who opposed the Constitution because they thought a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals. Some saw in the proposed government a new centralized and "monarchic" power in disguise that would replicate the cast-off governance of Great Britain. They believed that the national government would be too far away from the people and thus unresponsive to the needs of localities.

Many Anti-Federalists preferred a weak central government because they equated a strong government with British tyranny. They felt that the states were giving up too much power to the new federal government. They believed that the Constitution, as drafted, would lead to a loss of individual liberties, an erosion of state sovereignty, and the potential for the rise of tyranny. They wanted to encourage democracy and feared a strong government dominated by the wealthy.

The Anti-Federalists' opposition to ratifying the Constitution was a powerful force in the origin of the Bill of Rights to protect Americans' civil liberties. The Federalists agreed to consider amendments to be added to the new Constitution in response to the Anti-Federalists' demands.

Frequently asked questions