Anti-Federalists: Why They Opposed The Constitution

In 1788, there was a clash over the ratification of the US Constitution. The Federalists supported ratification, arguing that a strong national government was necessary for the United States to function as an independent nation. The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, feared that a strong central government would trample the states and fail to protect individual liberties. They also criticised the absence of a Bill of Rights.

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 $24.95

The Anti-Federalists' fear of a strong national government

The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution. They feared that a strong national government would trample the states and that the elite would not represent ordinary citizens. They also criticised the absence of a Bill of Rights, arguing that the Constitution did not adequately protect individual liberties.

Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution appeared to mimic the old corrupt and centralised British regime, under which a far-off government made the laws. They believed that the new national government would be run by wealthy aristocrats, who would monopolise power and use the new government to formulate policies that benefited their class. This development would also undermine local state elites.

One Anti-Federalist delegate named Melancton Smith took issue with the scheme of representation as being too limited and not reflective of the people. Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist, responded: "It has been observed by an honorable gentleman [Smith], that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government."

The Anti-Federalists published a series of essays under pseudonyms such as "Brutus", "Cato", and the "Federal Farmer", expressing their concerns about creating a strong central government and no Bill of Rights. A compromise was struck between the two sides of the debate when Massachusetts agreed to ratify the Constitution if the Federalists would agree to add a Bill of Rights.

The Federalists' support of a strong national government

The Federalists supported a strong national government, arguing that it was necessary for the United States to function as an independent nation. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison published 85 essays in *The Federalist*, urging support for the ratification of the Constitution. They believed that a strong national government would provide stability and unity, allowing the country to function effectively.

The Federalists also argued that a strong national government would protect the interests of the people. They believed that a central government was necessary to make laws and policies that would benefit all citizens, rather than just a few powerful individuals or local elites. In their view, a strong national government would prevent the wealthy and aristocrats from monopolising power and ensure that the interests of ordinary citizens were represented.

Additionally, the Federalists felt that a strong national government would help to maintain order and prevent chaos. They argued that a central authority was needed to enforce laws and maintain stability, especially in times of crisis or conflict. A strong national government, they believed, would provide a sense of security and protect the nation from internal and external threats.

The Federalists also recognised the importance of individual liberties and the protection of rights. While they supported a strong national government, they also acknowledged the need for checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. As such, they were open to the idea of a Bill of Rights, which would guarantee certain freedoms and protections for citizens.

The Federalists' support for a strong national government was driven by their desire to see a united and independent United States that could effectively represent the interests of its citizens. They believed that a strong central authority was crucial for the country's success and stability, and they worked to persuade others of the benefits of ratification.

The absence of a Bill of Rights

The Federalists, on the other hand, supported ratification and argued that a strong national government was necessary for the United States to function as an independent nation. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison published 85 essays in *The Federalist*, urging support for ratification. They believed that the Constitution, as written, provided a framework for a functioning government and that any changes could be made after the new government began operation.

The debate over the Bill of Rights was a significant point of contention between the two sides. The Anti-Federalists insisted that a Bill of Rights was necessary to protect individual freedoms and prevent the government from overreaching its powers. They argued that without explicit protections, the government could infringe upon the rights of its citizens. The Federalists, however, did not initially support the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, believing that the Constitution already implied certain rights and that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary.

As the debate intensified, the Federalists eventually agreed to compromise on the issue. Massachusetts agreed to ratify the Constitution on the condition that the Federalists would support the addition of a Bill of Rights. This compromise was a significant turning point in the ratification process, as it addressed one of the major concerns of the Anti-Federalists. The inclusion of a Bill of Rights was later enshrined in the Constitution through the adoption of the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.

Explore related products

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

$13.2 $24

Federalists and Antifederalists: The Debate Over the Ratification of the Constitution (Constitutional Heritage Series)

$35.48 $50

Mapping the Constitution: The Cartographic History of the Ratification of the Constitution

$25.07 $40

Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution

$32.88

The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification : Part One, September 1787-February 1788 (Library of America)

$32.82 $42.5

Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification

$17.1 $19.99

The Anti-Federalists' concerns about the elite monopolising power

The Anti-Federalists were concerned that the Constitution would allow the elite to monopolise power. They believed that the wealthy aristocrats would run the new national government and that the elite would not represent ordinary citizens. They argued that the rich would monopolise power and use the new government to formulate policies that benefited their class, undermining local state elites.

The Anti-Federalists also criticised the absence of a Bill of Rights, arguing that the Constitution did not adequately protect individual liberties. They saw the Constitution as mimicking the old corrupt and centralised British regime, under which a far-off government made the laws.

The Anti-Federalists published a series of essays under pseudonyms such as “Brutus,” “Cato,” and the “Federal Farmer,” expressing their concerns about creating a strong central government and no Bill of Rights.

The Federalists, on the other hand, supported ratification and argued that a strong national government was necessary for the United States to function as an independent nation. A compromise was struck between the two sides when Massachusetts agreed to ratify the Constitution if the Federalists would agree to add a Bill of Rights.

The Federalists' view that a strong national government was necessary for the US to function as an independent nation

The Federalists believed that a strong national government was necessary for the US to function as an independent nation. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison published 85 essays in The Federalist Papers, urging support for the ratification of the Constitution. They argued that a strong national government was needed to ensure the US could function effectively and independently.

The Federalists believed that a strong national government would provide stability and unity to the young nation. They argued that a central government was necessary to make laws and policies that would apply to all states, ensuring consistency and fairness across the country. They also believed that a strong national government would be better equipped to handle foreign affairs and protect the nation from external threats.

The Federalists also argued that a strong national government would help to promote economic growth and development. They believed that a central government could establish a uniform system of currency, regulate interstate commerce, and encourage economic activity. They also felt that a strong national government would be better positioned to address issues such as taxation and debt, which had been a source of contention under the Articles of Confederation.

Additionally, the Federalists felt that a strong national government would help to protect individual liberties and ensure equal rights for all citizens. They argued that a central government could enforce laws and protect citizens' rights, ensuring that all Americans were treated fairly and equally, regardless of their state of residence.

However, it is important to note that not all Federalists held these views uniformly. There were varying degrees of support for ratification, and some Federalists may have had different motivations for their stance. Nonetheless, the belief in the necessity of a strong national government for the US to function as an independent nation was a key aspect of the Federalist perspective during the debate over the ratification of the Constitution.

Frequently asked questions