Anti-Federalists' Opposition: The Constitution's Early Critics

The Anti-Federalists were a political movement that opposed the creation of a stronger US federal government and the ratification of the 1787 Constitution. They believed that the new Constitution gave too much power to the federal government at the expense of states' rights and individual liberties. The Anti-Federalists included small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers, and they favored strong state governments, a weak central government, and the direct election of government officials. Their opposition to the Constitution led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, which secured the basic rights and privileges of American citizens.

Explore related products

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

$6.54 $8.95

An Anti-Federalist Constitution: The Development of Dissent in the Ratification Debates (American Political Thought)

$27.3 $42.99

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

$32.67

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

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788: A Library of America Boxed Set

$78.32 $85

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

$5.59 $10

Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government

The Anti-Federalists were a diverse group, but they generally agreed that the new Constitution gave too much power to the federal government, threatening the sovereignty of the states and individuals. They believed that the unitary president resembled a monarch, and that this would lead to the creation of courts of intrigue in the nation's capital. They also feared that the central government would not serve the interests of small towns and rural areas, instead favouring the urban interests of most Federalist delegates.

The Anti-Federalists' opposition to the Constitution was based on the belief that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments rather than a federal one. They argued that the new Constitution gave the federal government excessive power, which could become tyrannous without a Bill of Rights to protect civil liberties and limit the government's power. This belief was so strong that Anti-Federalists in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York made their ratification of the Constitution contingent on the inclusion of a Bill of Rights.

The Anti-Federalists' concerns about the power of the federal government were so significant that they almost prevented the ratification of the Constitution. They published articles and delivered speeches against ratification, and their efforts eventually led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, which reserves any power not given to the federal government for the states and the people. This compromise helped to address the Anti-Federalists' fears of a powerful central government, and it has become the most important part of the Constitution for many Americans.

The Anti-Federalists' views on the role of the federal government were shaped by their composition, which included small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, and labourers. They favoured strong state governments, a weak central government, and the direct election of government officials. They also supported short term limits for officeholders, accountability to popular majorities, and the strengthening of individual liberties. These beliefs led them to oppose the creation of a stronger federal government and the ratification of the 1787 Constitution, which they saw as a threat to the sovereignty and prestige of the states and individuals.

The absence of a Bill of Rights

The Anti-Federalists, composed of diverse elements, including small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers, generally favored strong state governments, a weak central government, and the strengthening of individual liberties. They believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments rather than a federal one.

The original draft of the Constitution did not include a Bill of Rights, and Anti-Federalists saw this as a threat to the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, and individuals. They believed that the Constitution, as written, would lead to a centralized government, replicating the cast-off governance of Great Britain, and feared that the position of president would evolve into a monarchy.

To address these concerns, Anti-Federalists in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York made their ratification of the Constitution contingent on the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. James Madison, a Federalist, eventually agreed to draft a list of rights that the new federal government could not encroach upon, which became the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights, comprising 10 constitutional amendments, secures the basic rights and privileges of American citizens, including 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. It reserves any power not given to the federal government for the states and the people, ensuring that the federal government cannot infringe on the rights outlined in the amendments.

The unitary president resembled a monarch

One of the primary concerns of the Anti-Federalists regarding the newly proposed Constitution was the fear that the unitary executive, or the President, would resemble a monarch too closely and thus, the new system would mirror the tyranny of British rule that they had recently broken free from.

The Anti-Federalists were wary of concentrating too much power in the hands of a single individual, the President. They believed that this consolidation of authority in the executive branch could lead to the emergence of a despotic leader, akin to a monarch. This concern was rooted in the recent memory of King George III and the abuses of power under his rule, which had sparked the American Revolution. The Anti-Federalists feared that the President, with the vast powers granted by the Constitution, could become a new type of monarch, threatening the liberties and rights of the people.

The Constitution's provision for a unitary executive, as opposed to a tripartite executive favoured by some Anti-Federalists, further fuelled these fears. A unitary executive meant that all the powers of the executive branch would be vested in one person, the President. This concentration of power was seen as a potential threat to liberty and a recipe for tyranny. The Anti-Federalists argued that by giving the President broad powers, including the command of the military, the power to appoint federal judges, and the ability to veto legislation, the office resembled a monarchy, and the President could become an American king.

The Anti-Federalists also took issue with the lack of an immediate and direct accountability mechanism for the President. While the Constitution provided for impeachment, they were concerned that this process might be too cumbersome and political to serve as an effective check on a potentially tyrannical president. They believed that the President, once elected, would be virtually unchecked and could serve their own interests, much like a monarch, without sufficient regard for the will of the people or democratic principles.

Moreover, the Anti-Federalists criticised the absence of a clear bill of rights in the original Constitution. They argued that without explicit guarantees of individual liberties, the President, as the head of the executive branch, could infringe upon the freedoms of the people. This, they claimed, further resembled the tyranny of monarchy, where the ruler held near-absolute power. A strong bill of rights, in their view, was necessary to safeguard against potential abuses of power by the unitary executive.

In conclusion, the Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution due to their fear of a powerful, unitary executive headed by a President who could mirror monarchical tyranny. They believed that the President's broad powers, combined with a lack of direct accountability and weak checks and balances, could lead to the emergence of a new form of monarchy, endangering the freedoms and rights for which they had fought during the Revolution.

Explore related products

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

$18.65 $23

The Complete Federalist and The Anti-Federalist Papers: The Articles of Confederation, The Constitution of Declaration, All Bill Of Rights & Amendments (Part 4)

$7.49

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 Federalist Papers (Dover Thrift Editions: American History)

$7.14 $8

The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification 1787-1788 ( Complete )

$15

The Complete Federalist and The Anti-Federalist Papers: The Articles of Confederation, The Constitution of Declaration, The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

$7.49

The liberties of the people were best protected by state governments

The Anti-Federalists were a diverse group, but they generally agreed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments rather than a federal government. They believed that the new Constitution gave too much power to the federal government, which threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, and individuals.

The Anti-Federalists feared that the unitary president, a novelty at the time, would evolve into a monarchy, resembling the cast-off governance of Great Britain. They believed that the Constitution, as written, would be oppressive and provide insufficient rights in the courts. For example, there was no guarantee of juries in civil cases, nor that criminal case juries be local.

The Anti-Federalists also believed that a large central government would not serve the interests of small towns and rural areas, instead favoring urban interests. The movement was composed of small farmers, landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers, and they came from rural areas rather than the urban areas represented by most Federalists.

To address these concerns, the Bill of Rights was created, reserving any power not given to the federal government for the states and the people. The Bill of Rights has become the most important part of the Constitution for most Americans, protecting the free speech of civil rights activists, protecting Americans from unlawful government surveillance, and granting citizens Miranda rights during arrest.

The Constitution threatened individual liberties

The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 US Constitution, arguing that it threatened individual liberties. They believed that the new Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress and the president, at the expense of states. The unitary president, they argued, resembled a monarch, and that this resemblance would eventually produce courts of intrigue in the nation's capital.

Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those who believed that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals. 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 a large central government would not serve the interests of small towns and rural areas but instead favour urban interests. Anti-Federalists were more likely to be small farmers than lawyers and merchants and came from rural areas rather than the urban areas many Federalists represented.

The Anti-Federalists also believed that the Constitution, as written, would be oppressive, and that it provided insufficient rights in the courts (e.g., no guarantee of juries in civil cases, nor that criminal case juries be local) and would create an out-of-control judiciary. They believed that without a Bill of Rights, the federal government would become tyrannous. This belief in the necessity of a Bill of Rights was so strong that Anti-Federalists in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York made their ratification of the Constitution contingent on it.

The Bill of Rights is a list of 10 constitutional amendments that secure the basic rights and privileges of American citizens. They include 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. The Anti-Federalists' opposition to the Constitution was thus a powerful force in the origin of the Bill of Rights, which served to protect Americans' civil liberties.

Frequently asked questions