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.
Page 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.
Because most states had bicameral legislatures, there was little debate at the Constitutional Convention over the establishment of a bicameral legislature that would replace the unicameral Confederation Congress. However, there was considerable debate over representation in each house.
During the debate over ratification, large-state Antifederalists attacked the equal state representation in the Senate as inequitable. If Delaware, with less than ten percent of Virginia’s population, had the same representation as the Old Dominion in the Senate, how could anyone imagine that Virginians were fairly represented? Antifederalists also denounced the aristocratic nature of the Senate. Senators were to be elected by their state legislatures to six-year terms. Because Senators did not face mandatory rotation in office and were not subject to recall (as was the case in the Confederation Congress), Antifederalists feared they would serve for life.
Additional concerns focused on the Senate’s blended functions with the executive branch in appointments and making treaties. For Antifederalists this was a lack of a separation of powers between the branches of government. Additional concerns centered on the placement of the Vice-President as the president of the Senate with voting powers in the event of a deadlock. Antifederalists were also critical of the Senate’s role in trying cases of impeachment. Because of the Senate’s power to confirm appointments, Antifederalists speculated that the Senate would not convict anyone who was impeached.
Large-state Federalists justified the equality of the states in the Senate largely on the basis of expediency. Without this concession to the small states at the Constitutional Convention, consensus would have been impossible. Furthermore, the different constituency of the Senate, coupled with the six-year term with one-third of the Senators being elected every two years, promised greater stability for Congress as a whole. The Senate’s role in advising the President was justified in several ways. It was argued that the Senate would be a repository of experience and wisdom, and as such, should be made available to the President. To counter the charge that the Senate was an aristocratic body, Federalists pointed out that it could do nothing by itself. In passing legislation, the Senate needed the agreement of the House. In treaty-making and appointments, the Senate acted in conjunction with, and most probably in response to, the actions of the President. If Senators violated their trust, they would not be re-elected by their state legislatures.
The following documents are taken from The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and have been grouped into sub-categories to better understand the nuances of the debate over the Senate during the ratification period.
(F) Federalist Essays/Speeches
(AF) Antifederalist Essays/Speeches
AS AN ARISTOCRATIC BODY
(F) An American Citizen II: On the Federal Government, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 28 September 1787
(F) Americanus II, Virginia Independent Chronicle, 19 December 1787
(F) Remarker, Boston Independent Chronicle, 17 January 1788
(AF) Centinel II, Philadelphia Freeman’s Journal, 24 October 1787
(AF) John De Witt III, Boston American Herald, 5 November 1787
(AF) Cato V, New York Journal, 22 November 1787
(AF) Cincinnatus IV: To James Wilson, Esquire, New York Journal, 22 November 1787
(AF) Luther Martin: Genuine Information IV, Baltimore Maryland Gazette, 8 January 1788
COMPARISON TO BRITISH SYSTEM
(F) A Democratic Federalist, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 26 November 1787
GENERAL CRITICISM OF SENATE
(AF) Brutus XVI, New York Journal, 10 April 1788
(AF) A Native of Virginia: Observations upon the Proposed Plan of Federal Government, 2 April 1788
GENERAL PRAISE OF SENATE
(F) Americanus II, Virginia Independent Chronicle, 19 December 1787
(F) Marcus I, Norfolk and Portsmouth Journal, 20 February 1788
(F) Publius: The Federalist 62, New York Independent Journal, 27 February 1788
TREATY MAKING POWER OF SENATE
(F) Marcus III, Norfolk and Portsmouth Journal, 5 March 1788
(F) Cassius I: To Richard Henry Lee, Esquire, Virginia Independent Chronicle, 2 April 1788
(AF) Federal Farmer: An Additional Number of Letters to the Republican, 2 May 1788
(AF) Patrick Henry Speech in the Virginia Convention, 18 June 1788
IMPEACHMENT POWER OF SENATE
(F) Publius: The Federalist 65, New York Packet, 7 March 1788
(F) Publius: The Federalist 66, New York Independent Journal, 8 March 1788
(F) A Freeholder, Virginia Independent Chronicle, 9 April 1788
(AF) Cincinnatus V: To James Wilson, Esquire, New York Journal, 29 November 1787
(AF) Federal Farmer: An Additional Number of Letters to the Republican, New York, 2 May 1788
REPRESENTATION IN SENATE
(F) Robert R. Livingston Speech in the New York Convention, 24 June 1788
(F) Alexander Hamilton Speech in the New York Convention, 25 June 1788
(AF) Luther Martin: Genuine Information IV, Baltimore Maryland Gazette, 8 January 1788
SIZE OF SENATE
(F) Fabius II, Pennsylvania Mercury, 15 April 1788
(AF) Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention, Pennsylvania Packet, 18 December 1787
TERM OF OFFICE OF SENATORS
(F) Publius: The Federalist 63, New York Independent Journal, 1 March 1788
(F) Alexander Hamilton Speech in the New York Convention, 24 June 1788
(AF) Luther Martin: Genuine Information IV, Baltimore Maryland Gazette, 8 January 1788
(AF) Gilbert Livingston Speech in the New York Convention, 24 June 1788
(AF) John Lansing, Jr., Speech in the New York Convention, 24 June 1788
(AF) Melancton Smith Speech in New York Convention, 25 June 1788