Opposition To The Constitution: Why And Who?

The Anti-Federalists were a diverse group composed of small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, laborers, and popular politicians who opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution. They believed that the Constitution would give too much power to the federal government, threatening the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, and individuals. They also feared that it would lead to a monarchy, with the president becoming a king, and that it did not provide sufficient rights and protections for its citizens. Their opposition led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, which protects Americans' civil liberties.

Explore related products

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

$10 $15.59

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

$18.65 $23

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

Anti-Federalists: a powerful force for the Bill of Rights

The Anti-Federalists were a diverse group composed of small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, labourers, and popular politicians such as Patrick Henry. They opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution, arguing that it threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, and individuals. They believed that a large central government would not serve the interests of small towns and rural areas, favouring instead a weak central government with strong state governments, direct elections of government officials, and short term limits for officeholders.

The Anti-Federalists' opposition to the Constitution was rooted in their fear of a powerful and unresponsive national government. They argued that the strong national government proposed by the Federalists threatened the rights of individuals and that the president would become a king. They believed that the Constitution provided insufficient rights in the courts and would create an out-of-control judiciary. Additionally, they objected to the federal court system created by the proposed Constitution.

The Anti-Federalists also had economic concerns. They believed that a large central government would favour urban interests over those of small towns and rural areas. They wanted to keep most political power at the state and local level, where it had always been in America, rather than replacing a distant government in Great Britain with another distant government in an American city. They also believed that the Constitution, as written, would be oppressive and needed a Bill of Rights to protect civil liberties.

The opposition of the Anti-Federalists was a powerful force in the origin of the Bill of Rights. Their agitations led to the adoption of the First Amendment and the other nine amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution, as it stood, did not provide adequate protections for individual liberties. By demanding a Bill of Rights, they helped to ensure that the new government would have checks and balances in place to protect the rights of Americans.

Fear of a powerful, centralised government

The Anti-Federalists, a diverse group composed of small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, and labourers, opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution due to a fear of a powerful, centralised government. They believed that a strong national government would threaten the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, and individuals.

Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed constitution would create a centralised government, concentrating power in a distant, unresponsive national government rather than keeping power at the state and local level. They saw this as a threat to individual liberties and believed it would lead to a monarchy, with the president becoming a king. They also objected to the federal court system and believed that the constitution did not provide sufficient rights in the courts, such as the guarantee of local juries in criminal cases.

The Anti-Federalists favoured strong state governments, a weak central government, the direct election of government officials, short term limits for officeholders, and accountability by officeholders to popular majorities. They believed that the central government under the Articles of Confederation was sufficient, or that while the national government under the Articles was too weak, the national government under the Constitution would be too strong.

The debate over ratification was a battle over federalism and political power—how much power to give to the national government and how much to keep with the states. The Federalists, supporters of the new Constitution, argued for a stronger national government, while the Anti-Federalists defended a vision of America rooted in powerful states. The Anti-Federalists' opposition to the Constitution led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights to protect Americans' civil liberties.

Insufficient rights in the courts

The Anti-Federalists were a late-18th-century political movement that opposed the creation of a stronger US federal government and the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. They believed that a large central government would not serve the interests of small towns and rural areas. Anti-Federalists were more likely to be small farmers than lawyers and merchants, and they came from rural areas rather than the urban areas represented by many Federalists.

The Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution, as written, would be oppressive. They argued that it provided insufficient rights in the courts, such as no guarantee of juries in civil cases and no guarantee that criminal case juries would be local. They believed that the federal judiciary would become "out-of-control" and that the national government would be too far removed from the people and their localities.

The Anti-Federalists' opposition to the Constitution centred on several key concerns. Firstly, they worried that the position of president, a novelty at the time, might evolve into a monarchy, concentrating excessive power in the hands of one man. They also disapproved of the federal government's ability to tax its citizens, believing that this right should remain with the states.

The greatest sticking point in the ratification debates was the relative power of state and federal governments. Many people resisted increasing the powers of the national government at the expense of the states. The framers of the Constitution, however, believed that without the ability to maintain and command an army and navy, impose taxes, and force states to comply with laws passed by Congress, the young nation would not survive for long.

The Federalists, supporters of the Constitution, argued that a strong central government was necessary to lead the new nation. They promised to add a bill of rights to the Constitution to address concerns about individual liberties. This promise helped secure ratification, and the Bill of Rights was introduced in Federal Hall, the first capitol building of the United States.

Explore related products

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

The Dissenters: A Novel

$14.49 $17

The Great Dissenter: The Story of John Marshall Harlan, America's Judicial Hero

$14.7 $32.5

Dissenter - T-Shirt

$18.99

Russian Dissenters

$32.27

State vs national power

The debate over the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 was a battle between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, with the former emerging victorious. The Federalists, supporters of the new Constitution, sought to amend the Articles of Confederation, which had established a confederal government with limited authority and states retaining primary sovereignty. The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, opposed the ratification, arguing that the new Constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of states' rights and individual liberties.

The Anti-Federalists, composed of small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, labourers, and popular politicians, favoured strong state governments, a weak central government, direct elections of officials, short term limits, and accountability to popular majorities. They believed that a large central government would not serve the interests of small towns and rural areas and that the Constitution would lead to a powerful presidency akin to monarchy. They also argued that the national government would be too far removed from the people and unresponsive to local needs.

The Federalists, meanwhile, argued for a stronger national government, claiming that the Articles of Confederation had serious flaws and needed replacement. They sought to address these perceived problems through the new Constitution, which established three independent branches of government, including a bicameral Congress, to create a more powerful and effective government.

The Anti-Federalists' opposition played a significant role in the adoption of the Bill of Rights, which aimed to protect Americans' civil liberties and address concerns about individual freedoms. The First Amendment and other amendments were added to the Constitution as a compromise to alleviate fears of a powerful central government.

The political divide between Federalists and Anti-Federalists continued even after the adoption of the Constitution, with the former supporting Alexander Hamilton's aggressive policies and expansive constitutional interpretations, while the latter became the nucleus of the Jeffersonian Republican Party. The debate over state versus national power remains a recurring theme in American politics, with ongoing discussions about the balance between central authority and states' rights.

Rural vs urban interests

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. The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those who believed that a large central government would not serve the interests of small towns and rural areas, as opposed to the urban interests that most Federalist delegates aligned with. Generally, Anti-Federalists were more likely to be small farmers than lawyers and merchants and came from rural areas rather than the urban areas that many Federalists represented.

Anti-Federalists believed that the proposed constitution would be oppressive, and that the position of president might evolve into a monarchy. They also believed that the national government under the new constitution would be too strong, threatening the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, and individuals. They were concerned about the absence of a bill of rights, which they believed would lead to insufficient rights in the courts, such as no guarantee of juries in civil cases or local criminal case juries.

The Federalists, on the other hand, supported the ratification of the Constitution and believed that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate. They argued for an energetic national government and believed that the Articles of Confederation gave too much authority to state governments. The Federalists were supported by commercial interests, men of property, creditors, and many Americans who believed in the inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation.

The geographic distribution of Democrats and Republicans has turned political campaigns into high-stakes battles in which the parties pit urban against rural interests. The Democratic Party has evolved to become an almost exclusively urban party since President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal of the 1930s, when they formed links with labor unions and won support among industrial workers in cities. The geographic concentration of Democrats in cities has led to a systemic underrepresentation in Congress. Similarly, Republicans have formed alliances with rural and exurban groups, with each new issue, from civil rights to abortion to immigration, further polarizing the parties along urban-rural lines.

Frequently asked questions