Anti-Federalists vs.

Federalists
Debate
• Read the excerpt and answer questions 8-11“The Declaration of
Independence, drawn up by the Continental Congress, was actually a
declaration by ‘thirteen united States of America’ proclaiming that as
‘Free and Independent States they have full power to levy war,
conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all
other acts and things which independent States may of right do.’ And
the Articles of Confederation, for all the powers it theoretically gave
to the Congress, did not in fact alter this independence. . . .
Congressional resolutions continued to be mere recommendations
which the states were left to enforce. . . . The Confederation was
intended to be, and remained, a Confederation of sovereign states.”
Who were the Federalists and Anti-Federalists?
Anti-Federalists: People who opposed ratifying the Constitution
– George Mason, Edmond Randolph, and Elbridge Gerry
Each had attended the Philadelphia Convention but refused to sign the
Constitution
– John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Richard Henry Lee
All signed the Declaration of Independence, but opposed at first the
ratification of the new Constitution

Federalists: People who favored ratification

--John Jay, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison
 James Madison

Alexander Hamilton John Jay

 Prominent Anti-federalists

-Cato’s Letters
-Brutus
-Centinel
-Federal Farmer
Patrick Henry

Anti-Federalists were more concerned with protecting the rights of the

individual people and states than promoting the pubic good as a
whole.
 George Mason

 Anti-Federalist
 Virginian Plantation owner
 Wrote the Virginia Declaration of
Rights which becomes the model
for the Bill of Rights
 Refused to sign the Constitution
until a Bill of Rights was included
• Most Americans were very
suspicious of government, but
the Anti-Federalists were
especially mistrustful of strong
government.

– They feared they had created a

government that the people
could not control
 DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW
 Federalists  Antifederalists
argued for argued
• a strong national • States should have power
government • Legislative branch should
• Three branches of be strongest branch of
government filled with government
men of “reputation” • A strong president could
• a president to lead become a tyrant
executive branch • A Bill of Rights was needed
• No Bill of Rights to protect the rights of
(Unnecessary) Americans
 An Unfair Advantage?
 The Federalists publish
their essays in New
York newspapers and
pamphlets in 1787-
1789
 Newspapers support
the Federalist side and
publish more Federalist
writings than Anti-
Federalist writings!
 The Federalists Papers
 John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote
the Federalist Papers to get support for the Constitution.
The Federalist addressed issues such as representation,
rights of individuals and majority rule.

 The Anti-Federalists respond in the “Objections to the

Constitution of Government formed by the Convention”,
which argued the fear of a strong executive branch and
the absence of a Bill of Rights.
Does the national government have too much
power?
Anti-Federalists Federalists

• The supremacy clause • The Constitution

means that all the provides protections
national government’s for the state
laws are superior to governments by
laws made by the specifically reserving
states certain powers for the
• It will only be a matter states
of time until the state • This will prevent the
governments are states from being
destroyed destroyed by the
national government
Does the national government have too much
power?
Anti-Federalists Federalists

• The necessary and • The necessary and

proper clause is too proper clause and
general general welfare
• It gives too much clause are needed if
power to the national the national
government government is to do
• It is dangerous not to the things it is
list all the powers of responsible for doing
government in order to
put clear limits on
them
Does the national government have too much
power?
Anti-Federalists
• The Constitution gives too much
power to the executive branch of
government
• It will soon become a monarchy
Federalists
• A strong executive branch is
necessary
• It is needed if the national
government is to fulfill its
responsibilities
• Congress and the U.S. Supreme
Court have checks on the use of
power by the Executive branch
• The executive branch cannot
become a monarchy
• The power of the national
government are separated and
balanced among the three
branches
• No one branch can dominate the
others
• This system makes it impossible
for any person or group to take
complete control of government
Does the Constitution provide for republican
government?
Anti-Federalists
• Throughout history, the only
places where republican
governments worked had been in
small communities
• There, the people had similar
wealth and the same values
• People who are not too rich or too
poor are more likely to have civic
virtue
• Such people are more likely to
agree on what is best for the
common good
• The new nation would be too large
and diverse
• The people will not be able to
agree on their common welfare
Federalists
• History has proven that selfish
groups destroyed all the small
republics of the past
• The civic virtue of the citizens
was not enough to keep people
from seeking their own interests
• People did not work for the
common good
• A large republic where power is
divided between the national and
state governments is a better
solution
• It is also better to organize
government based on checks
and balances
• Under such a government, it will
be more difficult for special
interests to work against the
common good
Does the Constitution provide for republican
government?
Anti-Federalists
• Free government requires
the active participation of
the people
• The national government
will be located far from
where most people live
• People will be unable to
participate in government
• As a result, the only way
government will be able to
rule will be with military
force
• The result will be tyranny
Federalists
• The national government
cannot become a tyranny
• The limits placed on
government by the
system of separation of
powers and checks and
balances will prevent it
• Government will be so
good at protecting the
rights of the people that it
will soon gain their loyalty
and support
Is a Bill of Rights needed for the Constitution?
Anti-Federalists
• The Constitution does not include
a bill of rights
• A bill of rights is necessary to
protect people against the power
of the national government
• There is no mention of freedom of
religion, speech, press, or
assembly
• Since these freedoms are not in
the Constitution, government is
free to violate them
• Americans recently fought a war to
secure their fundamental rights
• They do not want a constitution
that places those rights in
jeopardy
Federalists
• A bill of rights is not needed
• The Constitution is the ultimate
protection for people’s rights and
the people are the ultimate
sovereigns
• The Constitution does not give
government the power to deprive
people of their rights
• It gives government only limited
power to do certain things
• A bill of rights will give the
impression that the people can
expect protection only for the
rights that are actually listed
• The Constitution protects a
number of rights by requiring
writs of habeas corpus, and
prohibiting ex post facto laws
and bills of attainder
Issue Anti- Federalists Response
Federalists
Fear
The The biggest The largest threats to
Bigg threat to the the people is having a
est people is the small government in
threa tyranny of which those in the
t to the minority will never
The government. have power. If there is
peop If a a large government
le government the diverse
is too big, it populations will
will have too ensure that a small
much power, group of people, a
and dangerous minority
Issue Anti-Federalists Federalists
Fear Response
The rights The checks and
guaranteed to balances are
the people enough to keep
should be the government
Protectio included in the from taking the
n of Constitution or rights of the
Individu else they are people away.
al not
Rights guaranteed
Issue Anti-Federalists Federalists
Fear Response
Representa The government The federal
tion should be run government
by should be
representativ run by well
es that are very educated
similar to those and
who they are experience
representing. d men, the
This new elite.
government will These are
encourage only the men
the well that are best
educated elite educated
to be and will be
Issue Anti-Federalists Federalists
Fear Response
People A free The central
will not government government
hold requires the created cannot
govern active support take the rights
ment of the people. of the people
account The new because of the
able government many checks
would be so and balances in
large that the Constitution
people would
not be involved
in government,
leading
 Anti-Federalists Federalists
Issue Fear Response
Power The limits of The checks and
given to the power balances in the
the given to the Constitution will
federal federal be effective in
govern government restraining the
ment are not clear power of the
and will result federal
in the government.
president The president
becoming a does not have
monarch. the power to
More limits make laws, so
Why did the Federalists agree to add a
Bill of Rights to the Constitution?
• A compromise was reached on the
issue of a bill of rights
– The Federalists made this
compromise to get enough support for
the Constitution so that it would be
ratified
– They agreed that when the first
Congress was held, it would draft a
bill of rights
• The argument to add a bill of rights
was a victory for the Anti-
Federalists
– It was an important addition to the
Constitution and has been of great
importance in the protection of the
basic rights of the American People