What were the reasons for the Anti-Federalists’ opposition to the ratification of the Constitution?

Directly following the Treaty of Paris of 1783 which brought an end to the American Revolution, the 13
states were governed by the Articles of Confederation, which contained a plethora of problems due to
its lack of central authority. Reduced foreign trade and limited credit due to war debts caused a
widespread economic depression with states competing with each other. To resolve this issue, delegates
from each of the states gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention, only to
sharply disagree on the fundamental purpose of the federal government. After 17 weeks of debate, on
September 17, 1787, the Philadelphia convention approved a draft of a new constitution which was
submitted to the states for ratification. For almost a year, however, ratification was fiercely debated
between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, who argued for and against the ratification respectively.
The anti-federalists, led by the likes from George Mason and George Clinton, opposed the ratification of
the constitution because they believed that a stronger central government would destroy the work of
the revolution, limit individual’s rights, and restrict the states’ rights.

In essence, the anti-federalists argued that the new constitution would create a presidency so
powerful that there would be no difference from the monarchy that the states fought so avidly against.
Especially since these events occurred directly after the revolution which occurred as a result of pent up
frustration towards Great Britain’s heavy involvement and control in the affairs of the state, the thought
of being governed by a strong central power brought negative emotions to many. This discontent could
be clearly seen in Rhode Island where a civil war almost broke out on July 4, 1788 when anti-federalists
marched into Providence with over 1000 armed protesters. The anti-federalists argued that the states
had successfully fought and won against Britain, possibly the strongest nation at the time, without a
strong central authority. They claimed that this was proof that the Articles of Confederation was enough
to run and maintain the newfound nation.

Another key aspect of the anti-federalists’ stance against the constitution was that they believed
a strong central authority will rob the people of their rights and individuality. This belief was crystalized
into a push for the Bill of Rights, which was their most successful argument against the adoption of the
constitution. The anti-federalists based their claims upon the fact that the constitution does not feature
elements to restrict the power of the federal government, which would enable it to expand its powers
endlessly, eventually involving itself deeper and deeper in the lives of the citizens, like the British
parliament once did. This shows how much the former colonists were disgusted with the involvement
from the Parliament such as the Quartering acts and how desperately they tried to prevent it from
reoccurring. Overall, the push for a Bill of Rights was universally supported, which resulted in 10 of
James Madison’s 12 amendments becoming ratified as the official Bill of Rights.

The anti-federalists also strongly pushed for stronger state governments instead of the
constitution, claiming that the national government would be too distant from the general public and
thus unable to address the needs of the localities. They firmly believed that a true “national
government” should be a league of state governments, and that strengthening the central government
would abrogate the state level. It is important to note that the anti-federalists consisted of small farmers
and landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers who preferred direct election and strong state governments
that could focus on their needs and guarantee their liberties and well-being. This is a contrast from the
majority of the delegates that participated in the Constitutional Convention, who were wealthy white
males, usually with a college-level education. This element highlights how the concept of a government
is perceived differently by different audiences.

In summation, the Anti-federalists were concerned that the constitution will take away their
efforts and progress towards true liberty by taking away the democratic and individualistic principles
that the nation was founded upon. These ideas were expressed through writing by various authors
acting under pseudonyms such as Robert Yates under the name Brutus. The conflict and debate over the
ratification of the constitution underlines the mood of the time period, where the former colonists were
focused on creating a firm basis for the government to guarantee the freedom, rights, and
representation that they were robbed of by Great Britain.