The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution because they feared that the new national government would be too powerful and thus threaten individual liberties, given the absence of a bill of rights.
Their opposition was an important factor leading to the adoption of the First Amendment and the other nine amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution, drafted at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, needed to be ratified by nine or more state conventions (and by all states that wanted to take part in the new government). A clash erupted over ratification, with the Anti-Federalists opposing the creation of a strong national government and rejecting ratification and the Federalists advocating a strong union and adoption of the Constitution.
Anti-Federalists were concerned about excessive power of national government
The Anti-Federalists included small farmers and landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers. When it came to national politics, they favored strong state governments, a weak central government, the direct election of government officials, short term limits for officeholders, accountability by officeholders to popular majorities, and the strengthening of individual liberties. In terms of foreign affairs, they were pro-French.
To combat the Federalist campaign, the Anti-Federalists published a series of articles and delivered numerous speeches against ratification of the Constitution.
The independent writings and speeches have come to be known collectively as The Anti-Federalist Papers, to distinguish them from the series of articles known as The Federalist Papers, written in support of the new constitution by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym Publius.
Although Patrick Henry, Melancton Smith, and others eventually came out publicly against the ratification of the Constitution, the majority of the Anti-Federalists advocated their position under pseudonyms. Nonetheless, historians have concluded that the major Anti-Federalist writers included Robert Yates (Brutus), most likely George Clinton (Cato), Samuel Bryan (Centinel), and either Melancton Smith or Richard Henry Lee (Federal Farmer).
By way of these speeches and articles, Anti-Federalists brought to light issues of:
- the excessive power of the national government at the expense of the state government;
- the disguised monarchic powers of the president;
- apprehensions about a federal court system;
- fears that Congress might seize too many powers under the necessary and proper clause;
- concerns that republican government could not work in a land the size of the United States;
- and their most successful argument against the adoption of the Constitution — the lack of a bill of rights to protect individual liberties.
Anti-Federalists pressured for adoption of Bill of Rights
The Anti-Federalists failed to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, but their efforts were not entirely in vain.
Although many Federalists initially argued against the necessity of a bill of rights to ensure passage of the Constitution, they promised to add amendments to it specifically protecting individual liberties. Upon ratification, James Madison introduced twelve amendments during the First Congress in 1789. The states ratified ten of these, which took effect in 1791 and are known today collectively as the Bill of Rights.
Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists reached a compromise that led to the adoption of the Constitution, this harmony did not filter into the presidency of George Washington.
Political division within the cabinet of the newly created government emerged in 1792 over fiscal policy. Those who supported Alexander Hamilton’s aggressive policies formed the Federalist Party, while those who supported Thomas Jefferson’s view opposing deficit spending formed the Jeffersonian Party.
The latter party, led by Jefferson and James Madison, became known as the Republican or Democratic-Republican Party, the precursor to the modern Democratic Party.
Election of Jefferson repudiated the Federalist-sponsored Alien and Sedition Acts
The Democratic-Republican Party gained national prominence through the election of Thomas Jefferson as president in 1801.
This election is considered a turning point in U.S. history because it led to the first era of party politics, pitting the Federalist Party against the Democratic-Republican Party. This election is also significant because it served to repudiate the Federalist-sponsored Alien and Sedition Acts — which made it more difficult for immigrants to become citizens and criminalized oral or written criticisms of the government and its officials — and it shed light on the importance of party coalitions.
In fact, the Democratic-Republican Party proved to be more dominant due to the effective alliance it forged between the Southern agrarians and Northern city dwellers.
The election of James Madison in 1808 and James Monroe in 1816 further reinforced the importance of the dominant coalitions within the Democratic-Republican Party.
With the death of Alexander Hamilton and retirement of John Quincy Adams from politics, the Federalist Party disintegrated.
After the War of 1812 ended, partisanship subsided across the nation. In the absence of the Federalist Party, the Democratic-Republican Party stood unchallenged. The so-called Era of Good Feelings followed this void in party politics, but it did not last long. Some scholars continue to see echoes of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates in modern party politics.
This article was originally published in 2009. Mitzi Ramos is an Instructor of Political Science at Northeastern Illinois University.
Send Feedback on this articlePage 2
Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) stands as the first U.S. Supreme Court case to expound upon the concept of academic freedom though some earlier cases mention it.
Most constitutional academic freedom issues today revolve around professors’ speech, students’ speech, faculty’s relations to government speech, and using affirmative action in student admissions.
Although academic freedom is regularly invoked as a constitutional right under the First Amendment, the Court has never specifically enumerated it as one, and judicial opinions have not developed a consistent interpretation of constitutional academic freedom or pronounced a consistent framework to analyze such claims.
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
(F) Publius: The Federalist 84, Book Edition II, 28 May 1788
(F) Edmund Pendleton to Richard Henry Lee, Richmond, 14 June 1788
Enumerated Powers Protects Rights
(F) 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, 31 January 1788
(F) George Nicholas Speech in the Virginia Convention, 16 June 1788
(AF) 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, 8 November 1787
(AF) Patrick Henry Speech in the Virginia Convention, 12 June 1788
Essential in an Original Contract
(AF) 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) Federal Farmer, Letters to the Republican, 8 November 1787
(AF) Agrippa XV, Massachusetts Gazette, 29 January 1788
(AF) A Citizen of the State of Maryland, Remarks Relative to a Bill of Rights, 12 April 1788
General Arguments
(F) A Countryman II, New Haven Gazette, 22 November 1787
(F) Valerius, Massachusetts Centinel, 28 November 1787
(AF) A Federal Republican, A Review of the Constitution, 28 November 1787
(AF) Portius, Boston American Herald, 12 November 1787
Good Government Protects Rights
(F) A Native of Virginia: Observations upon the Proposed Plan of Federal Government, 2 April 1788
(F) Fabius IV, Pennsylvania Mercury, 19 April 1788
(F) Publius: The Federalist 84, Book Edition II, 28 May 1788
Ineffective to List Rights
(F) A Countryman II, New Haven Gazette, 23 November 1787
(F) Gazette of the State of Georgia, 20 March 1788
Jury Trials Need Protection
(AF) 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
Limits Government
(F) Uncus, Maryland Journal, 9 November 1788
(AF) Richard Henry Lee to Edmund Randolph, 16 October 1787
(AF) Patrick Henry Speech in the Virginia Convention, 16 June 1788
Limiting Powers More Important than Bill of Rights
(F) James Wilson Speech in the Pennsylvania Convention, 28 November 1787
Necessary to Check Government Power
(AF) Timoleon, New York Journal, 1 November 1787, Extraordinary
(AF) Robert Whitehill Speech in the 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
Necessary to Prevent Tyranny
(F) Uncus, Maryland Journal, 9 November 1788
(F) A Native of Virginia: Observations upon the Proposed Plan of Federal Government, 2 April 1788
(AF) An Old Whig IV, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 27 October 1787
(AF) John Smilie Speech in the Pennsylvania Convention, 28 November 1787
(AF) Luther Martin: A Citizen of the State of Maryland Remarks Relative to a Bill of Rights, 12 April 1788
Necessary Statement of First Principles
(AF) A True Friend, Richmond, 6 December 1787
(AF) A Delegate Who Has Catched Cold, Virginia Independent Chronicle, 25 June 1788
Not Necessary to List Rights
(F) James Wilson Speech in the Pennsylvania State House Yard, 6 October 1787
(F) One of the Middling-Interest, Massachusetts Centinel, 28 November 1787
(F) Valerius, Massachusetts Centinel, 28 November 1787
(F) Anti-Cincinnatus, Northampton Hampshire Gazette, 19 December 1787
(F) America, New York Daily Advertiser, 31 December 1787
(F) William Cushing: Undelivered Speech, c. 4 February 1788
(F) Gazette of the State of Georgia, 20 March 1788
Not Necessary to List Natural Rights
(F) Remarker, Boston Independent Chronicle, 27 December 1787
(F) Aristides: Remarks on the Proposed Plan, 31 January 1788
Only Needed in Monarchial Governments
(F) Marcus I, Norfolk and Portsmouth Journal, 20 February 1788
(F) A Native of Virginia: Observations upon the Proposed Plan of Federal Government, 2 April 1788
(F) A Citizen of New-York: An Address to the People of the State of New York, 15 April 1788
(AF) New York Journal, 23 January 1788
Partial List in the Constitution is Incomplete
(AF) Federal Farmer, Letters to the Republican, 8 November 1787
(AF) Thomas B. Wait to George Thatcher, Portland, 8 January 1788
(AF) Patrick Henry Speech in the Virginia Convention, 17 June 1788
Proposed/Recommended Bills of Rights
Richard Henry Lee’s Proposed Amendments in Cogeress, 27 September 1787
Robert Whitehill’s Proposals in the Pennsylvania Convention, 12 December 1787
The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention, Pennsylvania Packet, 18 December 1787
Massachusetts Convention Recommendatory Amendments, 6 February 1788
William Paca’s Proposals in the Maryland Convention, Maryland Journal, 29 April 1788
New Hampshire Convention Recommendatory Amendments, 21 June 1788
George Mason’s Proposals in the Virginia Convention, 27 June 1788
Virginia Convention Recommendatory Amendments, 27 June 1788
John R. Lansing’s Proposals in the New York Convention, 10 July 1788
Melancton Smith’s Proposals in the New York Convention, 17 July 1788
New York Convention Recommendatory Amendments and Bill of Rights, 25 July 1788
North Carolina Convention Recommendatory Amendments, 2 August 1788
Rhode Island Convention Recommendatory Amendments, 29 May 1790
Representation Protects Rights
(F) Letter from Roger Sherman, New Haven, 8 December 1787
(F) America, New York Daily Advertiser, 31 December 1787
Supremacy Clause a Threat to Individual Rights
(AF) The Impartial Examiner I, Virginia Independent Chronicle, 20 February 1788
(AF) Denatus, Virginia Independent Chronicle, 11 June 1788
Treaty Powers a Threat to Individual Rights
(F) James Madison Speech in the Virginia Convention, 19 June 1788
(AF) Patrick Henry Speech in the Virginia Convention, 19 June 1788