anti federalist argument essay

PODCAST: HISTORY UNPLUGGED J. Edgar Hoover’s 50-Year Career of Blackmail, Entrapment, and Taking Down Communist Spies

The Encyclopedia: One Book’s Quest to Hold the Sum of All Knowledge PODCAST: HISTORY UNPLUGGED

The Main Anti-Federalist Arguments

In the ratification debate, the Anti-Federalist arguments opposed the Constitution. They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights.

The previous constitution, called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, gave state governments more authority. Led by  Patrick Henry  of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried, among other things, that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy. Though the Constitution was ratified and supplanted the Articles of Confederation, Anti-Federalist influence helped lead to the passage of the United States Bill of Rights.

Anti Federalist Arguments

As fine a document as the Constitution is, the Antifederalists, who were not frivolous men, raised some prescient criticisms. Patrick Henry was concerned that the “general welfare” clause would someday be interpreted to authorize practically any federal power that might be imagined. Others feared that the taxing power would prove an instrument of tyranny in the hands of the new government. Still, others feared the power of the judicial branch, whose pronouncements on the meaning of the Constitution may well run counter to the common understanding of the Framers but against whom the people would have little recourse. That the Antifederalists may have been on to something should be evident from a casual glance at the federal government today, which is not exactly the modest institution scrupulously confining itself to its enumerated powers that the Framers intended.

Some Antifederalists dropped their objections to the Constitution when they were promised that a Bill of Rights would be added. In 1791 that Bill of Rights was ratified, in the form of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The amendments that have provoked the most controversy in recent history are the First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth.

Additional Resources About Revolution and Colonies

What is federalism and how does it work, fun facts about george washington, what was the american revolution, benjamin franklin’s inventions, cite this article.

• How Much Can One Individual Alter History? More and Less...
• Why Did Hitler Hate Jews? We Have Some Answers
• Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb
• Is Russia Communist Today? Find Out Here!
• Phonetic Alphabet: How Soldiers Communicated
• How Many Americans Died in WW2? Here Is A Breakdown

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

• Why was the Bill of Rights added?
• How was the Bill of Rights added to the U.S. Constitution?
• Does the Bill of Rights apply to the states?

Anti-Federalists

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• American Battlefield Trust - Antifederalists and the Birth of American Party Politics
• Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University - Anti-Federalists
• UShistory - Antifederalists
• Anti-Federalists - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• Anti-Federalists - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)

Anti-Federalists , in early U.S. history, a loose political coalition of popular politicians, such as Patrick Henry , who unsuccessfully opposed the strong central government envisioned in the U.S. Constitution of 1787 and whose agitations led to the addition of a Bill of Rights . The first in the long line of states’ rights advocates, they feared the authority of a single national government, upper-class dominance, inadequate separation of powers , and loss of immediate control over local affairs. The Anti-Federalists were strong in the key states of Massachusetts , New York , and Virginia . In North Carolina and Rhode Island they prevented ratification of the Constitution until after the new government had been established. Stilling their opposition in order to support the first administration of U.S. Pres. George Washington , the Anti-Federalists in 1791 became the nucleus of the Jeffersonian Republican Party (subsequently Democratic-Republican , finally Democratic ) as strict constructionists of the new Constitution and in opposition to a strong national fiscal policy.

• Location, Hours & Parking
• Transportation Grants

• Our Mission
• Board and Officers
• Teacher Advisory Council
• The Courthouse
• The Federal Courts
• Photo Gallery Tour
• Schedule a Tour
• Bill of Rights Day 2024 Contest
• The Supreme Court and My Hometown
• Summer Teacher Institute
• Citizenship in the Nation for Scouts
• Girl Scout Day at the Courthouse
• Spring Art Competition
• Tinker v. Des Moines Exhibit
• Program Photos
• Student Center Landing Page
• The Role of the Federal Courts
• Organization of the Federal Courts
• How Courts Work
• Landmark Cases
• Educator Center Main Page
• Online Learning Resources
• Comparing State and Federal Courts
• Law Day Lessons and Activities
• The Ratification Debate

Ratifying the Constitution

Once the Constitution of the United States was written in 1787 at the Philadelphia convention, the next step was ratification.  This is the formal process, outlined in Article VII, which required that nine of the thirteen states had to agree to adopt the Constitution before it could go into effect.

As in any debate there were two sides, the Federalists who supported ratification and the Anti-Federalists who did not.

We now know that the Federalists prevailed, and the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788, and went into effect in 1789.  Read about their arguments below.

• Anti-Federalist Debate
• Federalist Debate

Those opposed to the Constitution

Anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government, while taking too much power away from state and local governments.   Many felt that the federal government would be too far removed to represent the average citizen.  Anti-Federalists feared the nation was too large for the national government to respond to the concerns of people on a state and local basis.

The Anti-Federalists were also worried that the original text of the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights.  They wanted guaranteed protection for certain basic liberties, such as freedom of speech and trial by jury .

A Bill of Rights was added in 1791.  In part to gain the support of the Anti-Federalists, the Federalists promised to add a bill of rights if the Anti-Federalists would vote for the Constitution.  Learn more about it by visiting the Student Center page on The Constitution and Rights .

Those in favor of the Constitution

Federalists believed that the nation might not survive without the passage of the Constitution, and that a stronger national government was necessary after the failed Articles of Confederation.

The Federalists met Anti-Federalist arguments that the new government created by the Constitution was too powerful by explaining that the document had many built-in safeguards, such as:

• Limited Government :  Federalists argued that the national government only had the powers specifically granted to it under the Constitution, and was prohibited from doing some things at all.
• Separation of Powers :  Federalists argued that, by separating the basic powers of government into three equal branches and not giving too much power to any one person or group, the Constitution provided balance and prevented the potential for tyranny.
• Checks and Balances :  Federalists argued that the Constitution provided a system of checks and balances, where each of the three branches is able to check or limit the other branches.

How did the Anti-Federalists feel about the federal courts?

Similar to how they felt about the rest of the proposed federal government, the Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution granted too much power to the federal courts, at the expense of the state and local courts.  They argued that the federal courts would be too far away to provide justice to the average citizen.

How did the Federalists feel about the federal courts?

The Federalists argued that the federal courts had limited jurisdiction, leaving many areas of the law to the state and local courts.  The Federalists felt that the new federal courts were necessary to provide checks and balances on the power of the other two branches of government.  They believed the federal courts would protect citizens from government abuse, and guarantee their liberty.

Courts today

Federalism is a form of government in which power is divided between the national government and the state governments.  In the United States, there is a federal court system.  In addition, each state has its own courts.  To learn more about this dual court system, visit the Student Center page State Courts vs. Federal Courts. 

Federalists and Anti-Federalists

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist factions developed during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Alexander Hamilton was a prominent leader of the Federalist faction. Image Source: Wikipedia.

Federalists and Anti-Federalists Summary

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two factions that emerged in American politics during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 . The original purpose of the Convention was to discuss problems with the government under the Articles of Confederation and find reasonable solutions. Instead of updating the Articles, the delegates replaced the Articles with something entirely new — the Constitution of the United States. Despite the development of the Constitution, there was disagreement. The people who favored the Constitution became known as Federalists. Those who disagreed, or even opposed it, were called Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists argued the Constitution failed to provide details regarding basic civil rights — a Bill of Rights — while Federalists argued the Constitution provided significant protection for individual rights. After the Constitution was adopted by the Convention, it was sent to the individual states for ratification. The ensuing debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists that followed remains of the great debates in American history, and eventually led to the ratification of the United States Constitution.

Quick Facts About Federalists

• The name “Federalists” was adopted by people who supported the ratification of the new United States Constitution.
• Federalists favored a strong central government and believed the Constitution provided adequate protection for individual rights.
• The group was primarily made up of large property owners, merchants, and businessmen, along with the clergy, and others who favored consistent law and order throughout the states.
• Prominent Federalists were James Madison , Alexander Hamilton , and John Jay .
• During the debate on the Constitution, the Federalists published a series of articles known as the “Federalists Papers” that argued for the passage of the Constitution.
• The Federalists eventually formed the Federalist Party in 1791 .

Quick Facts About Anti-Federalists

• Anti-Federalists had concerns about a central government that had too much power.
• They favored the system of government under the Articles of Confederation but were adamant the Constitution needed a defined Bill of Rights.
• The Anti-Federalists were typically small farmers, landowners, independent shopkeepers, and laborers.
• Prominent Anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry , Melancton Smith, Robert Yates, George Clinton , Samuel Bryan, and Richard Henry Lee .
• The Anti-Federalists delivered speeches and wrote pamphlets that explained their positions on the Constitution. The pamphlets are collectively known as the “Anti-Federalist Papers.”
• The Anti-Federalists formed the Democratic-Republican Party in 1792 .

Significance of Federalists and Anti-Federalists

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists are important to the history of the United States because their differences over the United States Constitution led to its ratification and the adoption of the Bill of Rights — the first 10 Amendments .

Learn More About Federalists and Anti-Federalists on American History Central

• Federalist No. 1
• Federalist No. 2
• Federalist No. 3
• Alexander Hamilton’s Speech to the New York Convention
• Articles of Confederation
• Presidency of George Washington — Study Guide
• Written by Randal Rust

• Lesson Plans
• Teacher's Guides
• Media Resources

Lesson 1: Anti-federalist Arguments Against "A Complete Consolidation"

Patrick Henry, an anti-federalist, speaking in the Virginia House of Burgesses, May 1765.

Throughout 1787-88, as Americans continued to debate the proposed Constitution, one of the most contentious issues was whether the Union – tightened into one indissoluble nation under a federal government – could be maintained without doing away with both liberty and the state governments. Anti-federalist Brutus (generally assumed to be New York delegate Robert Yates) summarized the issue thus:

“The first question that presents itself on the subject is…whether the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic…or whether they should continue thirteen confederated republics, under the direction and control of a supreme federal head for certain defined national purposes only?”

This lesson will focus on the chief objections of the Anti-federalists, especially The Federal Farmer (Richard Henry Lee), Centinel (Samuel Bryan), and Brutus (Robert Yates), regarding the extended republic. Students will become familiar with the larger issues surrounding this debate, including the nature of the American Union, the difficulties of uniting such a vast territory with a diverse multitude of regional interests, and the challenges of maintaining a free republic as the American people moved toward becoming a nation rather than a mere confederation of individual states.

Guiding Questions

What are the merits of the Anti-federalist argument that an extended republic will lead to the destruction of liberty and self-government?

What is the proper role of a federal government?

To what extent have the Anti-federalists’ fears about a consolidated government proved true over time?

Learning Objectives

Understand and be able to apply what Anti-federalists meant by the terms “extended republic” or “consolidated republic.”

Analyze and rank the problems the Anti-federalists believed would arise from extending the republic over a vast territory.

Assess the nature and purpose of representation in a republic and the degree to which this has served to advance democracy. 

Evaluate the following position of the Anti-Federalists: Representation in a large republic will lead to abuse of power by those in national office or the use of force to execute the laws.

Lesson Plan Details

After the Constitutional Convention of 1787 had ended and the proposed Constitution had been submitted to the American people for ratification, public debates raged between those who supported the Constitution (Federalists) and those who opposed it (Anti-federalists). One of the central issues in the debates was whether it would be possible to unite the thirteen states into one great nation, under one federal government, in such a way that the individual states and their respective governments would not be eliminated – and with them, the means of securing the liberties of the citizens of America. This question, in fact, had been one of the most important questions at the Convention, and had kept delegates preoccupied for the better part of half the time they had spent in Philadelphia. Delegates such as James Madison and James Wilson had put forward a plan that would transform the American Union from a loose confederation of sovereign and independent states – as they were considered to be under the Articles of Confederation – to a nation of one people, living in thirteen states, under a federal system that strengthened the national government but still left certain powers and responsibilities to the government of each state. This was accomplished, in the end, by altering the scheme of representation: under the Articles of Confederation, each state legislature selected delegates to a unicameral Congress, and each state delegation had an equal vote on all national matters; under the proposed Constitution, a bicameral Congress was created, and each state sent a proportional number of delegates, elected directly by the people of that state. The effect was that under the new federal arrangement, the Union was no longer to be based simply on a “league of friendship” between sovereign and independent states, but on a contract between all Americans united in one nation – a nation that was already vast by historical standards and that promised further growth in the future.

The question of the nature of the American Union carried over into the Federalist and Anti-federalist debates – both groups, in fact, took their names either from their support or opposition to the proposed changes to the nature of the American Union. Should the United States remain a loose connection of thirteen smaller republics, or could they be united into one larger republic? The Anti-federalists generally agreed that the project of consolidating into one great republic should be rejected. As the Anti-federalist “The Federal Farmer” (believed to be Richard Henry Lee) wrote in 1787, “The first interesting question, therefore suggested, is, how far the states can be consolidated into one entire government on free principles…If we are so situated as a people, as not to be able to enjoy equal happiness and advantages under one government, the consolidation of the states cannot be admitted.” The Federal Farmer explains that there are three possible “forms” that the Union could take. First, it could retain its form as existing under the Articles of Confederation, in which “the respective state governments must be the principal guardians of the people’s rights, and exclusively regulate their internal police; in them must rest the balance of government. The congress of the states, or federal head, must consist of delegates amenable to, and removable by the respective states.” The second option, according to the Federal Farmer, is to “do away [with the] state governments, and form or consolidate all the states into one entire government.” The Federal Farmer rejects these first two options in favor of a third, in which a partial consolidation takes place, or, as he puts it, “We may consolidate the states as to certain national objects, and leave them severally distinct independent republics, as to internal police generally.” Although he favors this “partial consolidation” in theory, the Federal Farmer rejects the proposed constitution because in time – due to the lack of safeguards for the rights of citizens and the reserved powers of the states – a complete consolidation of power on the national level is inevitable. “The convention appears to have proposed the partial consolidation evidently with a view to collect all powers ultimately,” wrote the Federal Farmer, “in the United States into one entire government.”

One of the chief objections of Anti-federalists was that the new national government would likely not be able to efficiently govern an extent of territory as vast as the United States. “[I]n a republic of such vast extent as the United-States,” wrote Brutus (believed to be Robert Yates of New York), “the legislature cannot attend to the various concerns and wants of its different parts.” Other Anti-federalists objected that such a system would only work if the national government gradually usurped all powers from the states, resulting in what they called a “consolidated” government. With the United States thus “melted down into one empire,” Anti-federalists argued that the national government would likely resort to force to maintain the Union and ensure compliance to national laws. As Centinel (believed to be Samuel Bryan of Pennsylvania) wrote, “It would not be difficult to prove, that any thing short of despotism, could not bind so great a country under one government.” The result, Anti-federalists believed, would be a powerful tyranny, in which the national government exercised its virtually unlimited powers to oppress the people and deprive them of their liberty. “A free republic,” Brutus concluded, “cannot long subsist over a country of the great extent of these states.”

Brutus elaborated on the disadvantages that must be felt from the attempt to create such a vast republic under one federal government. “If respect is to be paid to the opinion of the greatest and wisest men who have ever thought or wrote on the science of government,” wrote Brutus, “we shall be constrained to conclude, that a free republic cannot succeed over a country of such immense extent, containing such a number of inhabitants, and these increasing in such rapid progression as that of the whole United States.” History furnishes no example, Brutus says, of a large republic that did not eventually succumb to the political evils of disintegration or tyranny. The greatest flaw in an extended republic, Brutus believed, is that it would be impossible for legislative representatives to adequately know and act upon the interests of their constituents. The proposed Constitution would allow no more than one representative in the House for every 30,000 constituents, which would lead to a relatively small number of delegates in the national legislature. Federalists such as James Madison believed that a small number was necessary to prevent the House from being overcrowded and mob-like in character. Brutus agreed with Madison on this, but this just proved his point: the national legislature must have either too many members (and thus be unwieldy and inefficient) or too few members, in which case the interests of the constituents would not properly be represented.

Brutus and fellow Anti-federalist Centinel agreed that this problem of representation in a large republic would likely lead, eventually, to the emergence of either rebellion or tyranny in America. “It would not be difficult to prove,” wrote Centinel, “that any thing short of despotism, could not bind so great a country under one government.” In a large republic, Brutus argued, with relatively few representatives, constituents will not know their representative and vice versa. The result will be that the people “will have no confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious views, be jealous of every measure they adopt, and will not support the laws they pass.” Without the voluntary support of the people, Brutus writes, the only way the national government could ensure prompt and efficient execution of the laws would be “by establishing an armed force to execute the laws at the point of the bayonet — a government of all others the most to be dreaded.” The small number of representatives – and their remoteness from the watchful eye of their constituents – would also lead them to “become above the controul of the people, and [to] abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them.”

The vast extent of the American Republic would also bring other disadvantages, especially to the people of those states most remote from the seat of the national government. With the institution of a federal court system, citizens would be forced to travel great distances – a lengthy and expensive undertaking at the time – in order to bring legal suits or defend themselves at trials in federal courts. “I think it one of the greatest benefits in a good government,” wrote the Federal Farmer, “that each citizen should find a court of justice within a reasonable distance, perhaps, within a day’s travel of his home; so that, without great inconveniences and enormous expenses, he may have the advantages of his witnesses and jury.”

One of the strongest objections that Anti-federalists made against the extended republic was that it would consist of a great multitude of diverse interests, which would not only be inadequately represented in the national legislature, but would also serve as an obstacle to complete unity as one people and one nation. “In a republic,” writes Brutus, “the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other.” In the extended American Republic (consisting of “near three millions of souls” and growing) a wide variety of occupations – “professional men, merchants, traders, farmers, mechanics, &c.” – is made even more diverse by the differences in climate, manners and habits from state to state, not to mention the complexity of local laws and customs. Harmony among the citizens and cooperation in Congress could hardly be expected in such a vast nation; rather such a Union “would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.” All of these difficulties led the Anti-federalists to conclude that the project of melting the states “down into one empire” in “so extended a territory” would be worse than in vain – it would, in fact, lead to the loss of liberty and to the eventual dissolution of the Union altogether.

For more background information, the EDSITEment-reviewed resource “Ratification of the Constitution” website at Teaching American History offers useful texts and timelines of the Federalist and Anti-federalist debates, including their arguments regarding the extended republic.

NCSS.D1.1.9-12. Explain how a question reflects an enduring issue in the field.

NCSS.D2.Civ.3.9-12. Analyze the impact of constitutions, laws, treaties, and international agreements on the maintenance of national and international order.

NCSS.D2.Civ.4.9-12. Explain how the U.S. Constitution establishes a system of government that has powers, responsibilities, and limits that have changed over time and that are still contested.

NCSS.D2.Civ.5.9-12. Evaluate citizens’ and institutions’ effectiveness in addressing social and political problems at the local, state, tribal, national, and/or international level.

NCSS.D2.His.3.3-5. Generate questions about individuals and groups who have shaped significant historical changes and continuities.

NCSS.D2.His.4.3-5. Explain why individuals and groups during the same historical period differed in their perspectives.

NCSS.D2. His.5.3-5. Explain connections among historical contexts and people’s perspectives at the time.

NCSS.D2.His.6.3-5. Describe how people’s perspectives shaped the historical sources they created.

NCSS.D3.1.9-12. Gather relevant information from multiple sources representing a wide range of views while using the origin, authority, structure, context, and corroborative value of the sources to guide the selection.

Review the lesson plan. Locate and bookmark suggested materials and links from EDSITEment-reviewed websites used in this lesson. Download and print out selected documents and duplicate copies as necessary for student viewing. Alternatively, excerpted versions of these documents are available as part of the Text Document for each activity. Download the two Text Documents, Activity Worksheet 1 and Activity Worksheet 2 , for this lesson, available here as PDFs. These files contain excerpted versions of the documents used in the activities, as well as questions for students to answer. Print out and make an appropriate number of copies of the handouts you plan to use in class.

Note to teachers on prioritizing and modifying activities:  This lesson, because of the importance and complexity of the subject matter, involves activities that might require more time than is normally allotted for this topic. If your available time is limited to one day, it is recommended that teachers skip to Activity Two, which focuses on the specific arguments of Anti-federalists against creating an extended or consolidated republic, namely, the danger of tyranny and the inability to adequately represent the diverse interests of such a large nation. Teachers also have the discretion of modifying the assignments and materials to be covered in class to fit their allotted schedules. Teachers may also have the entire class engage in Activity One, and then assign the second activity to three smaller groups, which would then prepare a class presentation teaching the main points of the materials and activities to the rest of the class.

Because this lesson uses primary documents that include language that students might find difficult to understand or translate into modern terms, teachers may find it useful to create a vocabulary chart for the room, or a chart listing the main points of the Anti-federalist arguments. Students could refer to these charts before beginning the reading assignments.

Analyzing primary sources:  If students need practice in analyzing primary source documents, excellent resource materials are available at  this page  from the  Library of Congress  and  this page  from the  National Archives .

Activity 1. The "consolidated republic" over a vast extent of territory

Preparing for the activity:.

Print copies (or provide links) for students of the documents and questions assigned for homework and class discussion (listed below, included in the Text Document for Activity One).

This activity is designed to introduce students to the Anti-federalists’ views on extending the republic, as this, in their view, would involve doing away with the sovereignty of the thirteen separate and independent states and “melting them down” into one national republic. Students will also see that the initial arguments of Anti-federalists against the extended republic included the following: 1. A vast republic under a consolidated central government would prove fatal to the liberties of the people; and 2. History (and the authority of Baron de Montesquieu) had shown that no large republic in the past had survived without succumbing to either disintegration or tyranny.

On the day before the activity:

After viewing the above video on Alexander Hamilton , have all students read the documents for Activity One and assign the corresponding worksheet (available on pages 4-5 of the Text Document for Activity One). These documents are available in their entirety at the EDSITEment-reviewed Online Library of Liberty and Teaching American History , and in excerpted form on pages 1-3 of the Text Document for Activity One:

• The Federal Farmer (Richard Henry Lee) No. 1 , October 8, 1787
• Brutus No. 1 , October 18, 1787

On the day of the activity:

Divide the class into smaller groups, and allow 10-15 minutes for students to discuss and compare answers, updating their worksheets as they do.

With the remainder of class time, the teacher should initiate and lead class discussion over the ideas in the documents. The teacher can broaden the scope of the discussion by raising the following questions:

• How does the Federal Farmer’s distinctions between the possible “different forms of free government” show that the central question is whether the people of the United States should be firmly united in one nation, or loosely united as citizens of thirteen separate and independent states?
• Why does the Federal Farmer favor only a “partial consolidation” into one republic under a national government?
• Why does the Federal Farmer oppose the “partial consolidation” that will result from the proposed Constitution?
• Do the Federal Farmer and Brutus give the same reasons for rejecting an extended republic?
• Why does Brutus believe an extended republic would be fatal to liberty?

Activity 2. Dangers of the extended republic

Time required for activity: One homework assignment and one class instructional period

Print copies (or provide links) for students of the documents and questions assigned for homework and in-class analysis (listed below, included in the Text Document for Activity Two).

The purpose of the activity is to provide students with an understanding of the core arguments of Anti-federalists against creating a large republic under a consolidated central government. Students will better understand why Anti-federalists believed that a large republic would eventually result in either anarchy or tyranny, and how proper representation and the administration of justice would be rendered ineffective in a large extended republic.

For homework, have all students read the documents for Activity Two Reading Set A and assign the corresponding worksheet (available on page 4 of the Text Document for Activity Two). These documents are available in their entirety at the EDSITEment-reviewed Teaching American History , and in excerpted form on pages 1-3 of the Text Document for Activity Two :

Reading Set A: Fear of despotism or anarchy under a consolidated government

• Centinel No. 1 , October 5, 1787
• Brutus No. 4 , November 29, 1787

Discuss the homework assignment before going on to Reading Sets B and C.

Divide the class into two groups and assign each group Reading Set B or Reading Set C, as well as the corresponding worksheets (available on pages 7 and 9 of the Text Document for Activity Two). These documents are available in their entirety at the EDSITEment-reviewed Online Library of Liberty and Teaching American History , and in excerpted form on pages 5-6 and 8 of the Text Document for Activity Two:

Reading Set B: Disadvantages of the “remote states”

• The Federal Farmer (Richard Henry Lee) No. 2 , October 9, 1787

Reading Set C: Representation and the diversity of interests

Allow each group approximately 10-15 minutes to complete the worksheet for their assigned reading set.

Reshuffle the groups, and make sure every student has the readings and worksheets for both Reading Sets (B and C). Allow approximately 10-15 minutes for students to complete both worksheets.

With the remaining class time, each group should select one student to make a brief presentation to the class on the arguments against the extended republic in the readings.

The lesson can be extended by having each student write a short paper (1-2 pages) summarizing the Anti-federalist arguments against the extended republic.

After completing this lesson, students should be able to construct their response(s) to the following questions using multimodal tools:

• What did the Anti-federalists mean by a “consolidated republic”?
• Why does the Federal Farmer reject the “partial consolidation” that will result from the proposed constitution?
• Why did Centinel and Brutus believe that an extended republic would result in either rebellion or tyranny?
• Why does Brutus believe that representation will not work properly in an extended republic?
• According to Brutus, what problems would be caused by the diversity of interests among states and citizens in an extended republic?

Students should also be able to deliberate the themes addressed in this lesson, and write a longer (2-3 pages) essay answering the following question: Living in America 220 years after their objections were first raised, were the Anti-federalists’ fears about a consolidated government justified?

Alternative methods of assessment:

• Divide the class into small groups, and have each one develop a thesis statement that encompasses all the various elements of this lesson. They should be given roughly 15 minutes to do this. Once they have done so, each group should write its thesis statement on the board, and as a class discuss which is the best, and why. The entire class could then be given a homework assignment to write an essay that defends the statement.
• Allow students to prepare a podcast (or other recording) of a speech that addresses the questions above.

Students should be able to identify and summarize the views of the following Anti-federalists regarding the extended or consolidated republic:

• The Federal Farmer

Students should also be able to identify and explain the significance of the following concepts:

• Anti-federalist
• Extended republic
• Multiplicity of interests
• Adequate representation
• Administration of justice
• Consolidated government

Teachers can extend this lesson by engaging in the following supplemental activities:

• Have students create a PowerPoint presentation explaining the arguments that Anti-federalists made against the extended or consolidated republic.
• Have students choose two Anti-federalists discussed in this lesson with different arguments against the extended or consolidated republic, and have them write a summary report on the difference between them, as well as their reasons for holding their views.
• Have students use the individuals and concepts in “Assessment” to prepare flash cards (cardstock or note cards will work). The front of the card should have the name of the individual or the concept. The back of the card should have a description of the individual and his beliefs or an explanation of the concept. When completed, place students in pairs and allow time to practice with the flashcards in preparation for a quiz or test using the assessment questions.
• Have students write a paper in which they place themselves in the shoes of Brutus and explain how they would have reacted to the creation of extended republic. Students could also write as Brutus and explain their understanding of proper representation, the importance of protecting liberty, and the meaning of self-government.

Materials & Media

The federalist and anti-federalist debates: worksheet 1, the federalist and anti-federalist debates: worksheet 2, related on edsitement, lesson 2: the federalist defense of diversity and "extending the sphere", lesson 3: federalists and democratic-republicans: the platforms they never had, lesson 3: james madison: raising an army: balancing the power of the states and the federal government, the constitutional convention of 1787.

The Debate Over a Bill of Rights

Antifederalists argued that in a state of nature people were entirely free. In society some rights were yielded for the common good. But, there were some rights so fundamental that to give them up would be contrary to the common good. These rights, which should always be retained by the people, needed to be explicitly stated in a bill of rights that would clearly define the limits of government. A bill of rights would serve as a fire bell for the people, enabling them to immediately know when their rights were threatened.

Additionally, some Antifederalists argued that the protections of a bill of rights was especially important under the Constitution, which was an original compact with the people. State bills of rights offered no protection from oppressive acts of the federal government because the Constitution, treaties and laws made in pursuance of the Constitution were declared to be the supreme law of the land. Antifederalists argued that a bill of rights was necessary because, the supremacy clause in combination with the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses would allow implied powers that could endanger rights.

Federalists rejected the proposition that a bill of rights was needed. They made a clear distinction between the state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. Using the language of social compact, Federalists asserted that when the people formed their state constitutions, they delegated to the state all rights and powers which were not explicitly reserved to the people. The state governments had broad authority to regulate even personal and private matters. But in the U.S. Constitution, the people or the states retained all rights and powers that were not positively granted to the federal government. In short, everything not given was reserved. The U.S. government only had strictly delegated powers, limited to the general interests of the nation. Consequently, a bill of rights was not necessary and was perhaps a dangerous proposition. It was unnecessary because the new federal government could in no way endanger the freedoms of the press or religion since it was not granted any authority to regulate either. It was dangerous because any listing of rights could potentially be interpreted as exhaustive. Rights omitted could be considered as not retained. Finally, Federalists believed that bills of rights in history had been nothing more than paper protections, useless when they were most needed. In times of crisis they had been and would continue to be overridden. The people’s rights are best secured not by bills of rights, but by auxiliary precautions: the division and separation of powers, bicameralism, and a representative form of government in which officeholders were responsible to the people, derive their power from the people, and would themselves suffer from the loss of basic rights.

(F) Federalist Essays/Speeches (AF) Antifederalist Essays/Speeches

Dangerous to List Rights

• Publius: The Federalist 84, New York, 28 May 1788 (F)
• Edmund Pendleton to Richard Henry Lee, Richmond, Va., 14 June 1788 (F)

Enumerated Powers Protect Rights

• James Wilson Speech in the State House Yard, Philadelphia, 6 October 1787 (F)
• Anti-Cincinnatus, Northampton, Mass., Hampshire Gazette , 19 December 1787 (F)
• Aristides: Remarks on the Proposed Plan of a Federal Government , 31 January 1788 (F)
• George Nicholas Speech: Virginia Convention, 16 June 1788 (F)
• An Old Whig III, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer , 20 October 1787 (AF)
• Cincinnatus I: To James Wilson, Esquire, New York Journal , 1 November 1787 (AF)
• Federal Farmer: Letters to the Republican , New York, 8 November 1787 —excerpts from Letter IV (12 October 1787) (AF)
• Patrick Henry Speech: Virginia Convention, 12 June 1788 (AF)

Essential in an Original Contract

• An Old Whig IV, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer , 27 October 1787 (AF)
• John De Witt II, Boston American Herald , 29 October 1787 (AF)
• Brutus II, New York Journal , 1 November 1787 (AF)
• Agrippa XV, Massachusetts Gazette , 29 January 1788 (AF)
• Luther Martin: A Citizen of the State of Maryland, Remarks Relative to a Bill of Rights, 12 April 1788 (AF)

General Arguments

• A Countryman II (De Witt Clinton), New Haven Gazette , 22 November 1787 (F)
• Valerius, Massachusetts Centinel , 28 November 1787 (F)
• A Federal Republican, A Review of the Constitution , Philadelphia, 28 November 1787 (AF)
• Portius, Boston American Herald , 12 November 1787 (AF)

Good Government Protects Rights

• A Native of Virginia: Observations upon the Proposed Plan of Federal Government , 2 April 1788 (F)
• Fabius IV, Pennsylvania Mercury , 19 April 1788 (F)

Ineffective to List Rights

• A Countryman II (Hugh Hughes), New York Journal , 23 November 1787 (F)
• Gazette of the State of Georgia , 20 March 1788 (F)

Jury Trials Need Protection

• Cincinnatus II: To James Wilson, Esquire, New York Journal , 8 November 1787 (AF)
• The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention, Pennsylvania Packet , 18 December 1787 (AF)

Limits Government

• Uncus, Maryland Journal , 9 November 1788 (F)
• Richard Henry Lee to Edmund Randolph, New York, 16 October 1787 (AF)
• Patrick Henry Speech: Virginia Convention, 16 June 1788 (AF)

Limiting Powers More Important than Bill of Rights

• James Wilson Speech: Pennsylvania Convention, 28 November 1787 (F)

Necessary to Check Government Power

• Timoleon, New York Journal , 1 November 1787 (AF)
• Robert Whitehill Speech: Pennsylvania Convention, 28 November 1787 (AF)
• Philadelphiensis III, Philadelphia Freeman’s Journal , 5 December 1787 (AF)
• Address to the Members of the New York and Virginia Conventions, post-30 April 1788 (AF)

Necessary to Prevent Tyranny

• John Smilie Speech: Pennsylvania Convention, 28 November 1787 (AF)

Necessary Statement of First Principles

• A True Friend, Richmond, Va., 6 December 1787 (AF)
• A Delegate Who Has Catched Cold, Virginia Independent Chronicle , 25 June 1788 (AF)

Not Necessary to List Rights

• One of the Middling-Interest, Boston Massachusetts Centinel , 28 November 1787 (F)
• Valerius, Boston Massachusetts Centinel , 28 November 1787 (F)
• America, New York Daily Advertiser , 31 December 1787 (F)
• William Cushing: Undelivered Speech, c. 4 February 1788 (F)

Not Necessary to List Natural Rights

• Remarker, Boston Independent Chronicle , 27 December 1787 (F)

Only Needed in Monarchial Governments

• Marcus I, Norfolk and Portsmouth Journal , 20 February 1788 (F)
• A Citizen of New-York: An Address to the People of the State of New York , New York Packet , 15 April 1788 (F)
• New York Journal , 23 January 1788 (AF)

Partial List in the Constitution is Incomplete

• Federal Farmer: Letters to the Republican , New York, 8 November 1787 —excerpt from Letter IV (12 October 1787) (AF)
• Thomas B. Wait to George Thatcher, Portland, Maine, 8 January 1788 (AF)
• Patrick Henry Speech: Virginia Convention, 17 June 1788 (AF)

Proposed/Recommended Bills of Rights

• Richard Henry Lee’s Proposed Amendments, 27 September 1787
• Robert Whitehill’s Proposed Amendments: Pennsylvania Convention, 12 December 1787
• The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention, Pennsylvania Packet , 18 December 1787
• Massachusetts Form of Ratification, 6–7 February 1788
• William Paca’s Proposed Amendments: Maryland Convention, Maryland Journal , 29 April 1788
• New Hampshire Convention Amendments, 21 June 1788
• George Mason’s Proposed Amendments: Virginia Convention, 27 June 1788
• Recommended Amendments from the Virginia Convention, 27 June 1788
• John R. Lansing’s Proposed Amendments: New York Convention, 10 July 1788
• Melancton Smith’s Proposed Amendments: New York Convention, 17 July 1788
• New York Convention Recommendatory Amendments and Bill of Rights, 25 July 1788
• North Carolina Hillsborough Convention Amendments, 2 August 1788
• Rhode Island Form of Ratification and Amendments, 29 May 1790

Representation Protects Rights

• Letter from Roger Sherman, New Haven, Conn., 8 December 1787 (F)

Supremacy Clause a Threat to Individual Rights

• The Impartial Examiner I, Virginia Independent Chronicle , 20 February 1788 (AF)
• Denatus, Virginia Independent Chronicle , 11 June 1788 (AF)

Treaty Powers a Threat to Individual Rights

• James Madison Speech: Virginia Convention, 19 June 1788 (F)
• Patrick Henry Speech: Virginia Convention, 19 June 1788 (AF)

Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers

A compilation of our

11 Activities

Primary Source

U.S. Constitution.net

Federalist vs anti-federalist debate.

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist debate shaped the United States Constitution and continues to influence American governance. This discourse between two ideological camps highlights the tensions and compromises that formed the nation's foundational principles, balancing power and individual liberties.

Origins of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Debate

The Articles of Confederation initially united the states but proved inadequate. Congress lacked power to levy taxes or regulate interstate commerce, leading to economic instability and unrest. Events like Shays' Rebellion (1786-87) highlighted the need for a stronger central government.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia brought together key figures like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay to craft a new governing document. Their goal was to balance power while preventing both tyranny and ineffectiveness.

Federalists, including Madison and Hamilton, argued for a strong national government to unify the states and ensure stability. This view appealed to urban and commercial regions. Anti-Federalists, like Patrick Henry and George Mason, feared potential tyranny and preferred localized government where individuals had more influence.

The lack of explicit individual liberties protection became a major point of contention. Anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights to safeguard against governmental overreach.

Both sides advocated their views through essays and pamphlets. The Federalists penned the Federalist Papers , while Anti-Federalists wrote the Anti-Federalist Papers , critiquing the proposed Constitution.

Eventually, compromise prevailed. The promise of a Bill of Rights was key to winning support for ratification. This debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists formed the foundation of America's enduring political discourse, shaping the balance of power between states and the federal government.

Key Arguments of the Federalists

Federalists championed a strong central government to address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. They argued that a unified authority was necessary for the nation to thrive.

The Federalist Papers , a collection of 85 essays by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, explained and defended the proposed Constitution. Key arguments included:

• Protection against factions: Madison's Federalist No. 10 argued that a large republic would prevent any single faction from dominating others.
• National defense and finance: Hamilton's Federalist No. 23 stressed the need for a strong central government to provide for common defense and manage national finances.
• Checks and balances: Madison's Federalist No. 51 outlined the system of separate powers among executive, legislative, and judicial branches to prevent any branch from usurping too much power.
• Unity among Americans: John Jay's Federalist No. 2 emphasized shared ancestry, language, and principles as a foundation for centralized government.

Federalists highlighted the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation, citing events like Shays' Rebellion as evidence that a weak federal government could not maintain order or protect property rights.

Their vision was of a balanced government strong enough to command respect abroad while ensuring justice and order at home. This perspective was crucial in the debates leading to the Constitution's ratification and continues to influence American governance.

Key Arguments of the Anti-Federalists

Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution due to concerns about the dangers of a strong central government. Their arguments were rooted in recent experiences with British rule and a desire to protect individual liberty.

Key Anti-Federalist concerns included:

• Erosion of state autonomy: They feared that consolidating power at the national level would reduce states to mere administrative arms of a distant government.
• Lack of a Bill of Rights: The absence of explicit guarantees for individual liberties in the original Constitution was a major point of contention.
• Judicial overreach: Anti-Federalists warned that the proposed judiciary could interpret laws to its own advantage, potentially leading to tyranny.
• Executive power: They argued that the office of the President could evolve into a de facto monarchy given its extensive powers.
• Preference for localized government: Anti-Federalists believed that direct citizen involvement in state matters provided a crucial check on governmental power.
• Impracticality of a large republic: They contended that true democracy could only flourish in small, localized republics where citizens could actively participate in governance.

The Anti-Federalist critique led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, addressing many concerns regarding individual liberties. Their vigilance has left an enduring mark on the nation's constitutional heritage, ensuring that liberty remains a central pillar of the American Republic.

"The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can, and undoubtedly will, be recalled." 1

The debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists contributed to the resilient framework of the U.S. Constitution and continues to shape discussions on the balance between federal authority and state autonomy in modern American political life.

The Compromise: The Bill of Rights

The ratification of the Constitution hinged on addressing Anti-Federalist concerns about individual rights protection. James Madison, initially skeptical, recognized the need to address these worries to achieve ratification. The Bill of Rights emerged as a compromise, carefully crafted to address fears of governmental overreach and secure fundamental liberties.

The First Amendment enshrines freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. The Second Amendment addresses concerns about federal control over state militias. Amendments Three through Eight anchor citizens' protections within the legal system, including safeguards against arbitrary searches, protections for the accused, and prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments play a vital role in the federal structure, acknowledging unenumerated rights and reinforcing state sovereignty. This compromise reassured a wary populace that their freedoms would be preserved against potential governmental encroachments.

The Bill of Rights exemplified the Founding Fathers' ability to adapt and incorporate constructive criticism into the new governance framework.

It continues to serve as a cornerstone of American democracy, influencing judicial interpretations and protecting individual freedoms in a constantly changing society.

Impact on Modern American Politics

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist debates continue to shape modern American politics, particularly in discussions of governance, individual liberties, and the balance of power.

Key Areas of Ongoing Debate:

• States' Rights: Evident in healthcare, environmental regulations, and education policy debates.
• Individual Liberties: Particularly Second Amendment rights and gun control measures.
• Balance of Power: Tested through executive orders, judicial review, and legislative authority.
• Supreme Court Arbitration: Cases like Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) demonstrate ongoing relevance.
• Environmental Policies: Federal standards often clash with state priorities.
• Voting Rights: Federal oversight balances individual rights protection with state autonomy.
• Digital Age Concerns: Privacy and governmental surveillance debates echo Anti-Federalist concerns.

The Affordable Care Act, for instance, sparked controversy over federal authority to mandate healthcare provisions, echoing Anti-Federalist objections to federal overreach 1 . Environmental policies further explore this discourse, with federal efforts to establish standards often clashing with state priorities, as seen in recent debates over the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act 2 .

In the digital age, debates over privacy and governmental surveillance echo Anti-Federalist concerns about individual freedoms. The Patriot Act and subsequent expansions of government surveillance capabilities have reignited discussions about federal overreach and personal liberties 3 .

The ongoing evolution of these debates underscores the flexibility and enduring wisdom embedded in the United States Constitution, securing its place as a guiding document through centuries of change.

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist debate continues to inform the balance of power in American politics, ensuring that the principles upon which the nation was founded remain relevant and vital. This ongoing dialogue underscores the resilience of the constitutional framework in adapting to new challenges while maintaining its core values.

Introduction to the Antifederalists

Why the name Antifederalist?

Who were the Antifederalists and what did they stand for? The name, Antifederalists, captures both an attachment to certain political principles as well as standing in favor and against trends that were appearing in late 18th century America. It will help in our understanding of who the Antifederalists were to know that in 1787, the word “federal” had two meanings. One was universal, or based in principle, and the other was particular and specific to the American situation.

The first meaning of “federal” stood for a set of governmental principles that was understood over the centuries to be in opposition to national or consolidated principles. Thus the Articles of Confederation was understood to be a federal arrangement: Congress was limited to powers expressly granted, the states qua states were represented equally regardless of the size of their population, and the amending of the document required the unanimous consent of the state legislatures. A national or consolidated arrangement by contrast suggested a considerable relaxing of the constraints on what the union could and could not do along with a conscious diminution in the centrality of the states in the structure of the arrangement as well as the alteration of the binding document.

The second meaning of “federal” had a particular American character. In the 1780s, those folks who wanted a firmer and more connected union became known as federal men. People like George Washington, Gouverneur Morris, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and James Wilson were known as federal men who wanted a firmer federal, or even national, union. And those people like Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Clinton, Melancton Smith, and Roger Sherman, who opposed or who raised doubts about the merits of a firmer and more energetic union acquired the name of antifederal men who opposed an inclination to strengthen the ties of Union with a focus on centralized direction.

In the rough and tumble of American politics, the name by which one is known is often not of one’s own doing. The Antifederalists would have preferred to be known as democratic republicans or federal republicans, but they acquired the name antifederal, or Anti-federal, or Antifederal as a result of the particular events of American history. If we turn to principles to define what they stood for, the content of their position was what was known in history as an attachment to federal principles: a commitment to local government and limited general government, frequent elections and rotation in office, and to writing things down because our liberties are safer as a result.

Put differently, the actual name “Antifederalists” did not exist before 1782. It is a 1780s American contribution to the enduring American issue of what should government do, which level of government should do it, and which branch of which level should do it. This “problem in nomenclature” has led scholars over the ages to suggest, we think unfortunately, that the pro-constitutional nationalists like Madison and Hamilton actually consciously “stole” the name Federalist for propaganda purposes to improve their chances of persuading the electorate and the delegates to the ratifying conventions to adopt the Constitution. Rhetoric, both on behalf of, and in favor of the restraint of, the role of the federal government, is built into the very fabric of the American system. And the controversy over the name “Antifederalist” reflects that inherent quarrel.

Matching up the Antifederalist essays with The Federalist essays

There were no three Antifederalists who got together in New York, or Richmond, and said, “Let’s write 85 essays in which we argue that the Constitution should be either rejected or modified before adoption.” Thus, in contrast to the pro-Constitution advocates, there is no one book—like The Federalist (Papers) —to which the modern reader can turn to and say, “Here’s The Antifederalist (Papers).” Their work is vast and varied and, for the most part, uncoordinated.

There is thus a sense in which The Federalist makes our understanding of the American Founding relatively easy: here is the one place to go to get the authoritative account of the Constitution . One purpose of this website is to recover the arguments of the opposition. This recovery is based on a) a conversation that took place over several years and in which no blood was spilled, and b) the views of the Antifederalists, which are deeply embodied in the Constitution and the American tradition. The Antifederalists, as we argue in the section on the Antifederalist Legacy, are still very much alive and well in 21st century America.

An attempt to create an imaginary The Antifederalist Papers , to put along side The Federalist Papers for comparison purposes, is actually doing two contrary things: a) creating an impression that this specific Federalist paper matches up with that specific Antifederalist paper and b) capturing the worthwhile and accurate fact that a conversation of vital importance took place and both sides did address the concerns of the other side. The Timeline encourages the reader to see the following interplay: the pro-constitutional Caesar essays were responded to by the Antifederalist Brutus and Cato essays and these in turn were responded to with the launching of the essays by Publius that became The Federalist Papers in 1788. And this sort of interplay continues throughout the ratification process.

In certain places, as we show in the Brutus entries in the Essential Antifederalist section , one can certainly match up several Antifederalist essays with essential essays in The Federalist . The Antifederalists, as Herbert Storing has correctly suggested, criticized the Constitution and The Federalist criticized the Antifederalists. It makes sense, on the whole, however, to argue that the conversation took place at the founding at a thematic level rather than try to portray a conversation that took place at an individual specific essay-by-specific-essay level.

As the Timeline indicates, the Antifederalists were active in their opposition to the adoption of the Constitution even before the signing on September 17, 1787. And by November and December, they were actually winning the out-of-doors debate at least in terms of the sheer number of newspapers who carried their message in the key states of Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. And if we take a look the Six Stages of Ratification , we can see the impact of their pamphlet war on the selection of the delegates in these three key states.

Three Kinds of Antifederalists

There are three kinds of Antifederalists, but each voice is an important one in the creation and adoption of the Constitution and the subsequent unfolding of American politics. For a more detailed analysis of the coherence and relevance of the Antifederalists, see the link entitled The Legacy of the Antifederalists .

1. Those Concerned with the Virginia Plan

The first kind is represented by politicians such as Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut. They entered the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia with a suspicious disposition toward the Virginia Plan and its attempt to give sweeping powers to Congress and to reduce the role of the states in the new American system. This first group achieved considerable success in modifying this national plan back in the direction of federal principles. Thus, in the final document, the powers of Congress are listed, each state is represented equally in the Senate and composed of Senators elected by the state legislatures, the president is to be elected by a majority of the people plus a majority of the states, the Constitution is to be ratified by the people of nine states, and the Constitution is to amended by 2/3 of the House plus 2/3 of the Senate plus 3/4 of the state legislatures. Put differently, Sherman and Ellsworth secured the federal principles in the very Constitution itself and thus the Constitution is actually partly national and partly federal. In the end, Sherman and Ellsworth supported the adoption of the Constitution and thus secured the presence of the Antifederalist position in the American tradition.

2. Those Concerned With Consolidation

The second kind of Antifederalist is one who was not privy to the debate in Philadelphia, and has some deep concerns about the POTENTIALITY of the Constitution to lead to the concentration of power in the new government. We are talking about people such as Melancton Smith, Abraham Yates (Brutus), and George Clinton in New York, Richard Henry Lee (Federal Farmer) in Virginia, Samuel Bryant (Centinel) in Pennsylvania, and John Winthrop (Agrippa) in Massachusetts. They warned that without certain amendments, including a bill of rights that stated clearly what the new government could and could not do, the new Constitution had the POTENTIALITY to generate a consolidated government over a large territory in which one of the branches of government—the Presidency and the Judiciary were the leading candidates—would come to dominate. They warned that the partly national and partly federal Constitution would veer naturally in the direction of wholly national unless certain precautions were put in place to secure the partly-national and partly-federal arrangement. These Antifederalists are the ones we have included in our selection of the Essential Antifederalists on this website. Although we have to knit together their position from a number of sources, and although the Constitution was unconditionally ratified, their views entered the amended Constitution by way of James Madison and the First Congress.

3. Those Who Were Satisfied with the Articles of Confederation

The third and final group of Antifederalists was those who wanted as little deviation from the Articles as possible and saw the partly-national and partly-federal compromise as totally unsustainable. The arrangement was doomed to produce a wholly national outcome unless radical amendments were secured that altered and abolished the very structure and powers that the Framers took four months to erect. Ratifying delegates like Patrick Henry come to mind; he deliberately made a nuisance of himself at the Virginia Ratifying Convention disrupting the orderly process of debates at will.

George Mason and Elbridge Gerry also come to mind. They started off as warm supporters of a stronger national government but within twelve months had become open opponents of even the friendly amendments proposed by the second type of Antifederalist. Within this third type of Antifederalist, we would also include Philadelphia delegates Luther Martin, John Lansing, Robert Yates, and John Mercer. We have not included them in the Essential Antifederalist listings . Their legacy, as we have tried to capture in The Antifederalist Legacy, is probably to be found in the Calhoun movement in favor of secession from the American founding.

So I would argue, in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, that while The Federalist Papers are among the best essays ever written on representative government, they would not be as good as they are, or as many essays as there are, if it were not for the persistent critique of the Antifederalists who helped define the American conversation over what should government do, which level of government should do it, and which branch of that level of government should do it. Those questions are what the Essential Antifederalists bring to the conversation.

Receive resources and noteworthy updates.

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview
• Constitution 101 Curriculum
• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Constitution 101 With Khan Academy

Explore our new course that empowers students to learn the constitution at their own pace..

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, constitution 101 resources, 5.3 info brief: the anti-federalists.

This activity is part of  M odule 5: The Bill of Rights  from the  Constitution 101 Curriculum . 

Who were the Anti-Federalists?

The Anti-Federalists opposed the new Constitution.

The Anti-Federalist camp included a group of founding-era heavyweights, including: 

• Virginia’s George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee
• Massachusetts’s Samuel Adams, Elbridge Gerry, and Mercy Otis Warren
• New York’s powerful Governor George Clinton

What about the rank-and-file Anti-Federalists? Generally speaking, Anti-Federalists were more likely to be small farmers than lawyers or merchants.

In addition, Anti-Federalist support was stronger:

• Out West rather than in the East
• In rural areas rather than in the cities
• In large states rather than in small states

While many Americans know about the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalists included their own set of powerful authors—every bit as politically potent and theoretically sophisticated as their Federalist opponents. For instance, there’s “Brutus”—usually thought to be leading New York Anti-Federalists (and one-time Constitutional Convention delegate) Robert Yates—and his influential set of essays. In addition, Massachusetts poet, historian, and patriot Mercy Otis Warren penned her own widely read Observations on the New Constitution, using the pen name “A Columbian Patriot.” Finally, other key Anti-Federalist writers included Federal Farmer (likely New York’s Melancton Smith or Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee) and Centinel (Pennsylvania’s Samuel Bryan).

What were some of the Anti-Federalists’ main reasons for opposing the new Constitution?

In many ways, the ratification battle was a debate over political power—and where to place it. In other words, it was a battle over federalism—the question of how much power to give to the national government and how much power to keep with the states.

While the Federalists argued for a stronger national government, the Anti-Federalists defended a vision of America rooted in powerful states. 

The Anti-Federalists feared that the new Constitution gave the national government too much power. And that this new government—led by a new group of distant, out-of-touch political elites—would:

• Seize all political power
• Swallow up the states—the governments that were closest to the people themselves
• Abuse the rights of the American people

For the Anti-Federalists, this was the road to tyranny.

Remember, Americans at the founding rarely traveled outside of their own towns. For them, the nation’s capital—though located in New York, Philadelphia, and (eventually) Washington, D.C.—might as well have been in London. So, the Anti-Federalists weren’t interested in replacing a powerful, out-of-touch, distant government in Great Britain with a new one in some distant American city. Better to keep most political power at the state and local level—where it had always been in America—and limit the powers of the national government.

In the end, the Anti-Federalists faced an uphill fight during the battle over ratification. Americans had largely concluded that the Articles of Confederation had serious problems. Even many key Anti-Federalists agreed with that.

Furthermore, to win political battles, it often takes a plan to beat a plan. The Federalists had a plan—the new Constitution. The Anti-Federalists didn’t.

As a result, it was easy for the Federalists to frame the ratification fight as a battle between a new Constitution and the deeply flawed Articles of Confederation.

Even so, the Anti-Federalists almost won.

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students