Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

The Constitution almost didn’t happen. Its ratification sparked one of the most important debates in American history.

The Articles of Confederation

Before the Constitution, we had the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789). The Articles created a “firm league of friendship” among the states, not a unified nation.

Structure Under the Articles

• No executive branch: No president to enforce laws
• No national judiciary: No federal courts
• Unicameral Congress: Each state got one vote, regardless of population
• Supermajority requirements: Nine of thirteen states needed for major decisions; unanimous consent for amendments
• No power to tax: Congress could request money from states but couldn’t compel payment
• No power to regulate commerce: States imposed tariffs on each other

Why It Failed

The weaknesses became obvious quickly:

1. Shays’ Rebellion (1786-1787)

   • Farmers in western Massachusetts, crushed by debt and taxes, took up arms
   • The national government couldn’t raise troops to respond
   • Massachusetts had to suppress the rebellion with its own militia
   • This terrified elites: If the government couldn’t maintain order, what was the point of government?

2. Economic chaos

   • States issued their own currencies
   • They imposed tariffs on goods from other states
   • No unified commercial policy
   • Creditors couldn’t collect debts across state lines

3. Foreign policy weakness

   • The United States couldn’t negotiate effectively with foreign powers when it couldn’t guarantee that states would honor treaties

4. No revenue

   • The national government was broke
   • Couldn’t pay Revolutionary War debts or fund basic operations

The Constitutional Convention

In May 1787, delegates gathered in Philadelphia to revise the Articles. They quickly decided to scrap them entirely and write a new Constitution.

The Convention was led by George Washington (who presided) with major contributions from James Madison (who took detailed notes and is called the “Father of the Constitution”), Alexander Hamilton, and the members of the “Grand Committee” who brokered key compromises.

The key question: How do you create a government strong enough to function but not so strong it becomes tyrannical?

The Federalist Position

Federalists supported ratification of the Constitution. Key figures: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay (who together wrote The Federalist Papers).

Core Arguments

1. A strong national government is necessary

   • The Articles proved that a weak central government can’t maintain order, conduct foreign policy, or manage the economy

2. A large republic is safer than a small one (Madison’s argument in Federalist No. 10)

   • More diverse interests make it harder for any single faction to dominate
   • Representatives “refine and enlarge” public views
   • Geography makes coordination among dangerous factions difficult

3. Separation of powers prevents tyranny (Federalist No. 51)

   • “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition”
   • Each branch checks the others
   • No single person or group can accumulate too much power

4. The Constitution itself limits government

   • Enumerated powers specify what the federal government can do
   • Everything else is reserved to states or the people

The Anti-Federalist Position

Anti-Federalists opposed ratification. Key figures: Patrick Henry, George Mason, and the author of the Brutus essays (likely Robert Yates).

Core Arguments

1. The Constitution creates a dangerously powerful central government

   • Brutus No. 1 warns that the necessary and proper clause and supremacy clause would allow the federal government to expand indefinitely
   • States would become “subordinate to the general government”

2. A large republic cannot preserve liberty

   • In small republics, citizens know their representatives and can hold them accountable
   • Representatives share the same interests as their constituents
   • In a large republic, representatives become distant elites who don’t understand ordinary people’s concerns

3. The Constitution lacks a Bill of Rights

   • Without explicit protections for individual liberties, what stops the government from violating them?
   • The states had bills of rights. Why shouldn’t the national constitution?

4. The executive is too powerful

   • The president looks dangerously like a king
   • He commands the military, makes treaties, appoints officials
   • What prevents him from becoming a tyrant?

Comparing the Arguments

The Compromise

✅ The Federalists won ratification, but only by promising to add a Bill of Rights

This compromise reflected both positions:

• The Constitution created a stronger national government (Federalist victory)
• The Bill of Rights explicitly protected individual liberties (Anti-Federalist demand)

The first ten amendments were ratified in 1791, fulfilling the Federalists’ promise.

Legacy of the Debate

This debate never really ended. It echoes in every argument about federal power:

1. States’ rights vs. federal authority

   • When should the national government override state decisions?
   • The Anti-Federalist concern about consolidated power persists

2. Constitutional interpretation

   • Strict constructionists (limit federal power to enumerated powers) echo Anti-Federalist skepticism
   • Broad constructionists (federal power includes implied powers) echo Federalist pragmatism

3. Size of government

   • Debates about bureaucratic expansion, federal regulations, and government spending reflect the original tension between those who wanted a strong national government and those who feared it

Key Documents to Know

Three essential readings:

1. Federalist No. 10 (Madison)

   • Argument for a large republic
   • Factions are inevitable, but a large republic makes them less dangerous by dispersing them

2. Federalist No. 51 (Madison)

   • Separation of powers
   • “If men were angels, no government would be necessary”
   • Structure government so ambition counteracts ambition

3. Brutus No. 1 (likely Robert Yates)

   • The Anti-Federalist case against ratification
   • The Constitution would create a “complete national government” that would “annihilate” state governments

The Takeaway

✅ The Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate established the terms of American political argument

Every debate about federal power, states’ rights, individual liberty, and the proper scope of government descends from this original disagreement.

Both sides had valid concerns:

• The Federalists were right that the Articles were too weak
• The Anti-Federalists were right that concentrated power is dangerous
• The Constitution tries to balance these concerns, but the balance is never permanent

Each generation must renegotiate it.