Anti-Federalists: Opponents Of Constitution Ratification

Opponents of the ratification of the Constitution were known as Anti-Federalists. The name was given to them by their opponents, the Federalists, who supported the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were a political movement that emerged in the late 18th century, opposing the creation of a stronger US federal government and the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. They believed that the Constitution would lead to a loss of individual liberties and an erosion of state sovereignty, with too much power being consolidated in Congress and the unitary president. Their collected works, including essays, pamphlets, and speeches, later became known as the Anti-Federalist Papers.

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

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

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

$201

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 $39.95

Anti-Federalists' beliefs

The opponents of the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1787–1788 were commonly known as Anti-Federalists. Here are some of the core beliefs and principles that guided the Anti-Federalists' thinking:

Strong State Governments and Local Control:

Anti-Federalists advocated for strong state governments and local control over decision-making. They believed that power should be vested primarily in the states, with the federal government having limited, enumerated powers. This position reflected a fear of centralized authority and a desire to maintain the independence and sovereignty of the individual states. They argued that local governments were more responsive to the needs and concerns of the people and promoted a more democratic form of governance.

Defense of Individual Liberties and Property Rights:

Anti-Federalists were passionate defenders of individual liberties and property rights. They feared that a strong central government could infringe upon these rights and sought to ensure that any new government would have checks and balances to prevent tyranny. They wanted explicit guarantees of freedoms, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press, and they desired strong protections for private property, including a prohibition on the federal government's arbitrary seizure of land or goods.

Opposition to a Standing Army:

Anti-Federalists opposed the creation of a standing army, arguing that it posed a threat to liberty and could be used by the central government to oppress the people. They favored relying on state militias for defense, believing that a citizen-soldier force was more in line with the principles of a free republic. They also raised concerns about the financial burden of maintaining a large standing army, which they believed could lead to excessive taxation and debt.

Fear of Executive Power:

The Anti-Federalists were wary of a powerful executive branch, fearing the emergence of a monarchical-like figure. They sought to limit the powers of the presidency and ensure that the executive was accountable to the people. They proposed a single-term limit for the president and wanted to prevent the office from having too much influence over the other branches of government, particularly the legislative branch.

Support for a Bill of Rights:

One of the key demands of the Anti-Federalists was the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. They believed that a explicit enumeration of individual rights was necessary to protect citizens from potential government overreach. They argued that without such protections, the federal government could interpret its powers broadly and infringe upon the freedoms of the people. The Anti-Federalists played a significant role in pushing for the addition of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which became the Bill of Rights.

Preference for a Unicameral Legislature:

Unlike the Federalists, who favored a bicameral legislature, the Anti-Federalists preferred a unicameral, or single-house, legislative body. They argued that a unicameral legislature would be more efficient, promote equality among the states, and better represent the people's will. They believed that a second chamber, such as the Senate, would only serve to dilute the power of the people and create an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.

In summary, the Anti-Federalists' beliefs reflected a deep-rooted suspicion of centralized authority and a commitment to protecting individual liberties, state sovereignty, and local control. While they ultimately did not succeed in preventing the ratification of the Constitution, their influence was significant, and many of their concerns were addressed through the addition of the Bill of Rights and the establishment of checks and balances within the US government.

Loss of individual liberties

Opponents of the ratification of the Constitution, known as Anti-Federalists, believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, as opposed to a federal one. 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.

Anti-Federalists mobilized against the Constitution in state legislatures across the country, arguing that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government. They believed that the extensive powers it granted the federal government detracted from the republican governments of antiquity. In Virginia, Patrick Henry, author of the famous "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech, called the proposed constitution "A revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain." In the Essays of Brutus, an anonymous author worried that without any limitations, the proposed Constitution would make "the state governments... dependent on the will of the general government for their existence."

Anti-Federalists in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York made ratification of the Constitution contingent on a Bill of Rights. They demanded prior amendments to be sent to a second convention before they would accept the new government. During the debate in Massachusetts, opposition forced the Federalists to promise to consider amendments protecting the liberties of the people after the Constitution was ratified as written.

The Anti-Federalists' concerns about the loss of individual liberties were so significant that they played a crucial role in shaping the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a list of 10 constitutional amendments that secure the basic rights and privileges of American citizens. It includes the right to free speech, the right to a speedy trial, the right to due process under the law, and protections against cruel and unusual punishments. To address the Anti-Federalists' worries about excessive federal power, the Bill of Rights also reserves any power not given to the federal government to the states and the people.

Erosion of state sovereignty

Opponents of ratification of the Constitution were known as Anti-Federalists. They believed that the new Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress, at the expense of the states. They argued that the Constitution represented a betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution, in which Americans had fought against the consolidation of power in a distant, central government that claimed unlimited powers of taxation.

The Anti-Federalists' concerns centered around the erosion of state sovereignty. They believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, rather than a federal one. They saw the unitary president as resembling a monarch too closely and believed that this would lead to the creation of courts of intrigue in the nation's capital.

The Anti-Federalists' views on state sovereignty were informed by the historical context of the time. The concept of state sovereignty, or sovereignty more generally, has a long and contested history. The principle of state sovereignty, or the authority of a state to govern itself without external interference, was established in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which created the modern international system of nation-states. Before 1900, sovereign states enjoyed absolute immunity from the judicial process, but this changed with the development of international law and the emergence of organisations like the United Nations in the post-World War II era.

In the context of the ratification debates, the Anti-Federalists saw the Constitution as a threat to the sovereignty of individual states. They believed that the Constitution granted too much power to the federal government and detracted from the authority of the states. This was a particular concern in large and powerful states like Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia, where Anti-Federalist sentiment was strong. To address these concerns, the Federalists eventually agreed to a Bill of Rights, which included amendments to protect the liberties of the people and reserve powers for the states that were not explicitly given to the federal government.

The debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over state sovereignty reflected a broader tension between the ideals of a strong central government and individual state rights. The Anti-Federalists' views on state sovereignty were shaped by their desire to protect the liberties of the people and prevent the consolidation of power in a distant, central government. While the Federalists ultimately prevailed in the ratification debates, the Anti-Federalists played an important role in shaping the Bill of Rights and ensuring that the powers of the federal government were balanced by the rights of the states.

Explore related products

The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788 (Published by the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture and the University of North Carolina Press)

$37.41 $42.5

The Anti Federalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788

$38.7

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

$9.99 $9.99

Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford Political Theory)

$27.99 $73

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

$13.21 $24.99

Reforming the Liturgy: A Response to the Critics (Pueblo Books)

$20 $29.95

Rise of tyranny

Opponents of the ratification of the Constitution were known as Anti-Federalists. They were a late-18th-century political movement that opposed the creation of a stronger US federal government and the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. 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.

The Anti-Federalists worried that the new government would be too powerful, resulting in a tyranny that the states would be powerless to stop. They believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, as opposed to a federal one. They saw the unitary executive of the president as eerily monarchical, and that this resemblance would eventually produce courts of intrigue in the nation's capital.

The Anti-Federalists believed that the "necessary and proper" clause gave the central government too much power. They were suspicious of the president's pardon power and the president and the Senate's ability to coordinate together to negotiate and ratify treaties that might damage particular states or regions because neither were elected by the people. They also believed that the vice president gave too much power to the state from which he hailed.

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. This helped to assuage critics and ensure that the Constitution would be successfully ratified.

The Federalists

The opponents of the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1787–1788 were commonly known as Anti-Federalists. Those who supported ratification were known as Federalists. Now, let's focus on the Federalists in the text below:

One of the key figures among the Federalists was Alexander Hamilton, who, along with James Madison and John Jay, wrote a series of essays known as The Federalist Papers. These papers were published in newspapers to persuade the people of New York to ratify the Constitution. The Federalist Papers remain today an important interpretation of the Constitution, and they express the Federalist philosophy of a strong, centralized government with checks and balances among its branches.

Federalists believed in the importance of a strong executive, and they supported the creation of the office of the president, who would have the power to veto legislation and serve as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. They also favored a bicameral legislature, with the Senate providing a check on the more democratic House of Representatives. This was to ensure that the government would not be dominated by a simple majority that might infringe on the rights of the minority.

In addition to Hamilton, other prominent Federalists included John Adams, the second president of the United States, and John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. The Federalists can be credited with shaping the fundamental structure and principles of the American government, and their influence can still be felt today in the functioning of the federal system.

Overall, the Federalists played a crucial role in the early political history of the United States, and their support for the Constitution and a strong central government helped lay the foundations for the modern American political system.

Frequently asked questions