Why Some Opposed The Constitution's Ratification

The ratification of the 1787 Constitution was opposed by a political movement known as the Anti-Federalists. They believed that the new Constitution would give the federal government too much power, threatening the sovereignty of the states and the liberties of individuals. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, the Anti-Federalists also worried that the position of president might evolve into a monarchy. They demanded a Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties and ensure that the federal government did not become tyrannous. The ratification process sparked an intense national debate, with the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, arguing that the Constitution provided a necessary framework for a strong, effective central government capable of unifying the nation. Despite the opposition, the Constitution was ratified, but the Anti-Federalists' influence helped lead to the enactment of the 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

Anti-Federalists opposed the centralisation of power

The Anti-Federalists, a coalition of popular politicians, small farmers and landowners, shopkeepers, and labourers, opposed the centralisation of power in the US Constitution of 1787. 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 unitary president resembled a monarch too closely, and that this resemblance would lead to the creation of courts of intrigue in the nation's capital.

Anti-Federalists in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York, three crucial states, made ratification of the Constitution contingent on a Bill of Rights. 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 without a Bill of Rights, the federal government would become tyrannous.

To combat the Federalist campaign, the Anti-Federalists published a series of articles and delivered numerous speeches against ratification of the Constitution. These writings and speeches have come to be known collectively as The Anti-Federalist Papers. In mid-October, Alexander Hamilton enlisted the contributions of Madison and John Jay to write a series of essays defending the Constitution from critics. The first of these Federalist essays was published in a New York newspaper under the pseudonym Publius.

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. Their opposition led to the adoption of the First Amendment and the other nine amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights reserves any power that is not given to the federal government for the states and the people.

They believed the unitary president resembled a monarch

The ratification of the United States Constitution in 1787 was a contentious affair, with Anti-Federalists and Federalists engaging in a fierce national debate. The Federalists, led by the likes of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, supported the Constitution, arguing that it provided a necessary framework for a robust and effective central government capable of unifying the nation, countering external threats, and managing domestic affairs. They believed that the Constitution's checks and balances would prevent any single branch of government from becoming too powerful.

The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the ratification. While they held diverse views on what a new constitution should entail, they shared some common concerns about the proposed Constitution. One of their primary objections was the belief that the unitary president resembled a monarch too closely. This concern struck at the heart of their fears about the concentration of power in the federal government.

The Anti-Federalists worried that the president, as outlined in the Constitution, would wield powers akin to those of a monarch, thereby undermining the democratic ideals they sought to uphold. They argued that the president, as described in the Constitution, would have the authority to make war, appoint and dismiss cabinet members, and veto bills sent by the legislature—powers that, at the time, were often associated with monarchs. This concentration of executive power in a single office evoked comparisons to monarchy, a form of government they had recently fought a war to overthrow.

The Anti-Federalists' fears about the presidential office resembling a monarchy were not unfounded. Professor Saikrishna Prakash noted that while most of the Constitution's framers intended to create an executive distinct from a monarch, many contemporary observers, including foreigners and monarchs from other nations, believed the president was akin to a king. The president's powers as commander-in-chief, the ability to make treaties and judicial appointments, and the power to grant pardons, all contributed to this perception.

The Anti-Federalists' critique of the unitary president as monarchical in nature reflected their deep-seated concerns about the potential for tyranny and the erosion of liberties. They believed that concentrating power in a single executive, without sufficient checks and balances, could lead to the abuse of power and the infringement of the rights of citizens. This concern was a driving force behind their insistence on a Bill of Rights, which they saw as a necessary safeguard against governmental overreach.

The debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists shaped the early political landscape of the United States and continues to influence discussions about the role of government and the balance of power in the modern era.

The Federalists were led by Alexander Hamilton

Hamilton sought a strong central government acting in the interests of commerce and industry. He brought to public life a love of efficiency, order, and organization. In response to the call of the House of Representatives for a plan for the "adequate support of public credit", he laid down and supported principles not only of the public economy but also of effective government. He supported a loose interpretation of the Constitution, which allowed for a range of federal powers, including the establishment of a national bank.

Hamilton pointed out that America must have credit for industrial development, commercial activity, and the operations of government. He insisted on full payment of the national debt and a plan by which the federal government took over the unpaid debts of the states incurred during the Revolution. He also devised a Bank of the United States, with the right to establish branches in different parts of the country. He sponsored a national mint and argued in favor of tariffs, using a version of an "infant industry" argument: that temporary protection of new firms can help foster the development of competitive national industries.

The Federalists often looked towards Great Britain as a model, favoring commercial and diplomatic relations that would benefit the growing economy. This ideology attracted merchants, landowners, and urban professionals. They believed that the checks and balances built into the Constitution would prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful.

The Federalists argued that the Constitution provided a necessary framework for a strong, effective central government capable of unifying the nation, protecting against foreign threats, and managing domestic affairs.

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

The Federalists argued for a strong, unified central government

The Federalists, led by men such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, argued for a strong, unified central government. They believed that the Constitution provided a necessary framework for a strong, effective central government capable of unifying the nation, protecting against foreign threats, and managing domestic affairs. They argued that the checks and balances built into the Constitution would prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful.

The Federalists saw their most important role as defending the social gains of the Revolution. They believed that the Constitution was designed to be a "republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government." They also believed that the Constitution was required to safeguard the liberty and independence that the American Revolution had created.

The Federalist Party, formed in 1791, supported Hamilton's vision of a strong centralized government and agreed with his proposals for a national bank and heavy government subsidies. They advocated for a strong central government, federalism, modernization, industrialization, and protectionism. They believed that the problems of the country in the 1780s stemmed from the weaknesses of the central government created by the Articles of Confederation.

The Federalists were strongest in New England, but also had strengths in the middle states. They controlled the national government until 1801, when they were defeated by the Democratic-Republican Party. The Federalists were well-organized, well-funded, and made careful use of the printed word. They published a series of 85 essays under the pseudonym "Publius" to defend the Constitution from critics and persuade the public of its necessity.

The Anti-Federalists' influence helped lead to the Bill of Rights

The ratification of the United States Constitution in 1787 was a contentious process, with Anti-Federalists and Federalists clashing over the extent of the federal government's power. The Anti-Federalists, a group that included small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, and labourers, vehemently opposed the ratification. They believed that the Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress, undermining the states' authority. They also argued that the unitary executive resembled a monarch and that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments rather than a federal one.

One of the Anti-Federalists' most prominent arguments centred on the absence of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. They contended that a Bill of Rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberties and prevent the federal government from becoming tyrannous. The Anti-Federalists' opposition to ratification on these grounds was so strong that they made their support for the Constitution contingent on the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. This stance influenced key states like Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York, which were crucial for the legitimacy of the new government.

The Federalists, led by figures such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, initially rejected the need for a Bill of Rights. They argued that the Constitution's checks and balances prevented any branch of government from becoming too powerful and that the people retained all rights not explicitly granted to the federal government. However, as the ratification debates intensified, the Federalists realised that they needed to address the concerns of the Anti-Federalists to secure the support of crucial states.

In Massachusetts, for example, the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists became so heated that it erupted into a physical brawl between Elbridge Gerry and Francis Dana. Sensing that Anti-Federalist sentiment could derail ratification efforts, James Madison reluctantly agreed to draft a list of rights that the new federal government could not encroach upon. Madison introduced 12 amendments during the First Congress in 1789, and the states ratified 10 of these, which collectively became known as the Bill of Rights.

Thus, while the Anti-Federalists ultimately failed to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, their influence was significant. Their opposition to ratification and their insistence on a Bill of Rights helped lead to the adoption of the First Amendment and the other nine amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, securing the basic rights and freedoms of American citizens.

Frequently asked questions