Opposition To The Us Constitution: Who Fought Back?

The drafting of the US Constitution faced opposition from Anti-Federalists, who fought against it because it created a powerful central government, lacked a bill of rights, and failed to reserve un-delegated powers to the states. They believed that the Constitution resembled the government they had just overthrown and charged that it represented the work of aristocratic politicians serving their own class interests. The opposition was led by state-centered men with regional and local interests and loyalties, and they attacked on several fronts, including the lack of a bill of rights, discrimination against southern states, direct taxation, and the loss of state sovereignty. Rhode Island, which opposed federal control of currency and was critical of compromise on slavery, resisted ratifying the Constitution until the US government threatened to sever commercial relations.

Explore related products

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

$8.32 $8.95

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

$33

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

$10 $15.59

The Federalist Papers (Dover Thrift Editions: American History)

$7.14 $8

The Federalist Papers, Extended Edition: An Essential Collection of The Original, Unabridged Text (1787–88) With Detailed Commentary on Each Essay to Guide you Through America's Founding Ideas

$24.95

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

$18.65 $23

Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution

The Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution because they believed it created a powerful central government that resembled the one they had just overthrown. They also believed that the Constitution lacked a bill of rights. The Anti-Federalists attacked the proposed Constitution on several fronts, including the lack of a bill of rights, discrimination against southern states in navigation legislation, direct taxation, and the loss of state sovereignty. They also charged that the Constitution was the work of aristocratic politicians who were only interested in protecting their own class interests.

The Anti-Federalists' opposition to the Constitution was not limited to words; they also took action to try to prevent its ratification. In one instance, a Philadelphia mob dragged two Anti-Federalist members from their lodgings through the streets to the State House, where they were forced to stay while the assembly voted. Despite their efforts, the Anti-Federalists were ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the ratification of the Constitution.

The Anti-Federalists' concerns about the lack of a bill of rights were shared by many others, including some of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention. Before the convention adjourned, there were already plans to add amendments—a Bill of Rights—to specifically outline and protect various freedoms. However, some delegates still decided not to sign the document due to their concerns about its lack of a Bill of Rights.

The Anti-Federalists also believed that the Constitution failed to reserve un-delegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. These concerns were eventually addressed through a compromise, in which it was agreed that amendments would be immediately proposed after ratification. This compromise helped to secure the ratification of the Constitution in several states, including Massachusetts, Maryland, and South Carolina.

Overall, the Anti-Federalists' opposition to the Constitution was rooted in their concerns about the centralization of power and the lack of protection for individual liberties. While they were unsuccessful in preventing the ratification of the Constitution, their efforts did lead to the addition of a Bill of Rights and other amendments that addressed some of their concerns.

The lack of a bill of rights

The drafting of the US Constitution was a complex and contentious process, with a range of opposing views and ideologies. One of the most significant points of contention was the lack of a bill of rights in the original document. This omission led to intense debate and opposition from several key figures and groups.

The Anti-Federalists, a group that included leading revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Richard Henry Lee, were staunch opponents of the new Constitution. They believed that the Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress and the federal government, and that a bill of rights was necessary to protect individual liberties. Elbridge Gerry, one of the "Three Dissenters" who refused to sign the Constitution, wrote a popular Anti-Federalist tract, "Hon. Mr. Gerry's Objections", which focused on the lack of a bill of rights.

George Mason, another of the Three Dissenters, also played a crucial role in advocating for a bill of rights. He proposed that the Constitution be “prefaced with a bill of rights” and his pamphlet influenced many Americans to oppose the new government. James Madison, who initially opposed the idea of a bill of rights, eventually introduced a list of amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, to secure its passage and reduce pressure for a second constitutional convention.

The Federalists, on the other hand, argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Alexander Hamilton, a key Federalist, opposed the Bill of Rights, arguing that it would provide a "plausible pretense" for usurpers to claim powers not granted by the Constitution. They believed that the Constitution already protected freedoms of the press and religion, and that a bill of rights could be interpreted as exhaustive, with omitted rights considered as not retained.

The absence of a bill of rights posed an obstacle to the Constitution's ratification by the states. The Anti-Federalists in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York made their support contingent on the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. This led to the Massachusetts Compromise, where the states agreed to ratify the Constitution on the condition that the First Congress considered the proposed rights and amendments.

Despite the eventual inclusion of the Bill of Rights, its implementation faced challenges. For over a century after ratification, courts rarely invoked it, and legal inequalities persisted in the early 20th century, such as racial segregation, sex discrimination, and persecution of minority religions.

Loss of state sovereignty

The drafting and adoption of the US Constitution was a highly contested process, with several groups opposing its creation. One of the key concerns of the Anti-Federalists, who opposed the Constitution, was the loss of state sovereignty.

The Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States, provided for a loose confederation of states, with each state being sovereign in most of its affairs. The states had disputes over territory, war pensions, taxation, and trade, which threatened to tear the young country apart. The Articles of Confederation were ineffective as they gave the Confederation Congress no enforcement powers. This led to the convening of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 to draft a new constitution.

The Anti-Federalists opposed the new Constitution because it created a powerful central government that usurped state sovereignty. They believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government, undermining the power of individual states. The Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution failed to reserve un-delegated powers to the states and did not guarantee basic political rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. They wanted specific statements of rights protected and upheld by the Constitution, rather than just implications.

The Federalists, on the other hand, supported the Constitution and believed that a strong central government was necessary to face the nation's challenges. They argued that the Articles of Confederation had been ineffective and that a new constitution was needed to create a more unified and powerful country. The Federalists also believed that the Constitution would protect individual liberties and that anything not outlined in the Constitution remained protected by the states or the people.

The debate over state sovereignty and the role of the central government was a major point of contention during the ratification process. The Anti-Federalists fought hard against the Constitution, but they were often disorganized and lacked a unified plan. The Federalists, meanwhile, were well-organized and determined. Eventually, a compromise was reached, and the Constitution was narrowly ratified by the required number of states, with the assurance that amendments would be proposed immediately to address the concerns of the Anti-Federalists.

Explore related products

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

$11 $11

The Anti-Federalist Papers Publisher: Signet Classics

$11.53 $24.99

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 Anti-Federalist Papers

$10.95

The Federalist Papers Made Easier: The Complete and Original Text Subdivided and Annotated for Easier Understanding

$24.95 $24.95

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

Rhode Island resisted federal control

The drafting and ratification of the US Constitution faced opposition from various factions, notably the Anti-Federalists, who were wary of centralised power and loyal to their individual states. Rhode Island, in particular, resisted federal control and was the last state to ratify the Constitution.

Rhode Island's opposition to the Constitution stemmed from several factors. Firstly, the state had a strong tradition of independence and local control, having acquired the nickname "Rogue Island" for its frequent use of its veto power under the Articles of Confederation. Rhode Islanders were concerned about limiting federal power and wanted "further checks and securities" before adopting the Constitution. They also had economic concerns, including the issue of paper money issued by the state to pay off its Revolutionary War debt, and fears of direct federal taxes. The state's large Quaker population opposed the slave trade provisions in the Constitution. Additionally, Rhode Islanders were averse to the lengthy terms for members of Congress.

The state's resistance to the Constitution was so strong that between September 1787 and January 1790, Rhode Island's legislature rejected 11 attempts to ratify it. The state's governor wrote to Congress in September 1789, expressing their continued adherence to the principles of the old Confederation and their desire for limitations on federal power. By 1790, with the Constitution already in effect, Congress grew impatient and threatened a trade embargo against Rhode Island. This prompted petitions from Rhode Island merchants who feared the impact of import taxes on their businesses, and eventually, on May 29, 1790, Rhode Island ratified the Constitution by a narrow vote of 34 to 32.

Even in ratification, Rhode Island sought to limit federal power by attaching a list of amendments and human rights, including requests to ban poll taxes, the draft, the importation of slaves, and Congress's interference in state affairs. Rhode Island's resistance to federal control and its eventual, reluctant adoption of the Constitution highlight the complexities and challenges faced in the formation of the United States.

Massachusetts opposed the document

The US Constitution faced opposition from several factions, including the Anti-Federalists, who were wary of centralized power and loyal to their individual states. One of the key states where opposition to the US Constitution was prominent was Massachusetts. The state had a strong contingent of Anti-Federalists who vehemently opposed the creation of a powerful central government, fearing a repeat of the monarchy they had recently overthrown. They also criticized the lack of a bill of rights in the proposed US Constitution.

Massachusetts played a pivotal role in the ratification debate, and the tide eventually turned in favor of the Federalists due to the "vote now, amend later" compromise. This compromise helped secure victory in Massachusetts and, eventually, in the final holdout states, leading to the enactment of the new government under the US Constitution.

The opposition in Massachusetts was led by prominent figures such as Theophilus Parsons, a young lawyer who later became the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Parsons criticized the proposed constitution for several reasons, including its failure to address the issue of slavery explicitly and its lack of a declaration of rights. He also advocated for the separation of powers among the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

The Massachusetts Constitution, drafted by John Adams and approved in 1780, served as a model for the US Constitution. It was the last constitution written among the initial thirteen states and was unique in its structure, comprising chapters, sections, and articles. The Massachusetts Constitution included a strong prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and it played a significant role in abolishing slavery within the state.

The state's opposition to the US Constitution highlights the complexities and passionate debates surrounding the formation of the nation's founding document. The Anti-Federalists in Massachusetts and other states fought hard to protect their regional interests and ensure that the powers of the central government did not infringe on state sovereignty.

Frequently asked questions