thesis statement for federalist and anti federalist

Federalists and Anti-Federalists

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist factions developed during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Alexander Hamilton was a prominent leader of the Federalist faction. Image Source: Wikipedia.

Federalists and Anti-Federalists Summary

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two factions that emerged in American politics during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 . The original purpose of the Convention was to discuss problems with the government under the Articles of Confederation and find reasonable solutions. Instead of updating the Articles, the delegates replaced the Articles with something entirely new — the Constitution of the United States. Despite the development of the Constitution, there was disagreement. The people who favored the Constitution became known as Federalists. Those who disagreed, or even opposed it, were called Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists argued the Constitution failed to provide details regarding basic civil rights — a Bill of Rights — while Federalists argued the Constitution provided significant protection for individual rights. After the Constitution was adopted by the Convention, it was sent to the individual states for ratification. The ensuing debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists that followed remains of the great debates in American history, and eventually led to the ratification of the United States Constitution.

Quick Facts About Federalists

• The name “Federalists” was adopted by people who supported the ratification of the new United States Constitution.
• Federalists favored a strong central government and believed the Constitution provided adequate protection for individual rights.
• The group was primarily made up of large property owners, merchants, and businessmen, along with the clergy, and others who favored consistent law and order throughout the states.
• Prominent Federalists were James Madison , Alexander Hamilton , and John Jay .
• During the debate on the Constitution, the Federalists published a series of articles known as the “Federalists Papers” that argued for the passage of the Constitution.
• The Federalists eventually formed the Federalist Party in 1791 .

Quick Facts About Anti-Federalists

• Anti-Federalists had concerns about a central government that had too much power.
• They favored the system of government under the Articles of Confederation but were adamant the Constitution needed a defined Bill of Rights.
• The Anti-Federalists were typically small farmers, landowners, independent shopkeepers, and laborers.
• Prominent Anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry , Melancton Smith, Robert Yates, George Clinton , Samuel Bryan, and Richard Henry Lee .
• The Anti-Federalists delivered speeches and wrote pamphlets that explained their positions on the Constitution. The pamphlets are collectively known as the “Anti-Federalist Papers.”
• The Anti-Federalists formed the Democratic-Republican Party in 1792 .

Significance of Federalists and Anti-Federalists

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists are important to the history of the United States because their differences over the United States Constitution led to its ratification and the adoption of the Bill of Rights — the first 10 Amendments .

Learn More About Federalists and Anti-Federalists on American History Central

• Federalist No. 1
• Federalist No. 2
• Federalist No. 3
• Alexander Hamilton’s Speech to the New York Convention
• Articles of Confederation
• Presidency of George Washington — Study Guide
• Written by Randal Rust

Anti-Federalist vs. Federalist

In U.S. history, anti-federalists were those who opposed the development of a strong federal government and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, preferring instead for power to remain in the hands of state and local governments. Federalists wanted a stronger national government and the ratification of the Constitution to help properly manage the debt and tensions following the American Revolution . Formed by Alexander Hamilton , the Federalist Party, which existed from 1792 to 1824, was the culmination of American federalism and the first political party in the United States. John Adams, the second president of the United States, was the first and only Federalist president.

Comparison chart

Anti-Federalist vs. Federalist Debate

The American Revolution was a costly war and left the colonies in an economic depression . The debt and remaining tensions—perhaps best summarized by a conflict in Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion —led some founding political members in the U.S. to desire for more concentrated federal power. The thought was that this concentrated power would allow for standardized fiscal and monetary policy and for more consistent conflict management.

However, a more nationalistic identity was the antithesis of some founding political members' ideals for the developing states. A more centralized American power seemed reminiscent of the monarchical power of the English crown that had so recently and controversially been defeated. The potential consequences of centralized fiscal and monetary policy were especially frightening for some, reminding them of burdensome and unfair taxation. Anti-federalists were closely tied to rural landowners and farmers who were conservative and staunchly independent.

The most important parts of this debate were decided in the 1700s and 1800s in U.S. history, and the Federalist Party dissolved centuries ago, but the battles between federalist and anti-federalist ideologies continue into the present day in left and right wing American politics . To better understand the history behind this ongoing ideological debate, watch the following video from author John Green's U.S. history Crash Course series.

Articles of Confederation

Prior to the Constitution, there was the Articles of Confederation, a 13-articled agreement between the 13 founding states that covered issues of state sovereignty, (theoretical) equal treatment of citizenry, congressional development and delegation, international diplomacy, armed forces, fund raising, supermajority lawmaking, the U.S.-Canadian relationship, and war debt.

The Articles of Confederation was a very weak agreement on which to base a nation—so weak, in fact, that the document never once refers to the United States of America as being part of a national government, but rather "a firm league of friendship" between states. This is where the concept of the "United States"—i.e., a group of roughly and ideologically united, individually ruling bodies—comes from in the naming of the country. The Articles of Confederation took years for the 13 states to ratify, with Virginia being the first to do so in 1777 and Maryland being the last in 1781.

With the Articles of Confederation, Congress became the only form of federal government, but it was crippled by the fact that it could not fund any of the resolutions it passed. While it could print money, there was no solid regulation of this money, which led to swift and deep depreciation . When Congress agreed to a certain rule, it was primarily up to the states to individually agree to fund it, something they were not required to do. Though Congress asked for millions of dollars in the 1780s, they received less than 1.5 million over the course of three years, from 1781 to 1784.

This inefficient and ineffective governance led to economic woes and eventual, if small scale, rebellion. As George Washington 's chief of staff, Alexander Hamilton saw firsthand the problems caused by a weak federal government, particularly those which stemmed from a lack of centralized fiscal and monetary policies. With Washington's approval, Hamilton assembled a group of nationalists at the 1786 Annapolis Convention (also known as the "Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government"). Here, delegates from several states wrote a report on the conditions of the federal government and how it needed to be expanded if it was to survive its domestic turmoil and international threats as a sovereign nation.

Constitution

In 1788, the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, greatly expanding the powers of the federal government. With its current 27 amendments, the U.S. Constitution remains the supreme law of the United States of America, allowing it to define, protect, and tax its citizenry. Its development and relatively quick ratification was perhaps just as much the result of widespread dissatisfaction with a weak federal government as it was support for the constitutional document.

Federalists, those who identified with federalism as part of a movement, were the main supporters of the Constitution. They were aided by a federalist sentiment that had gained traction across many factions, uniting political figures. This does not mean there was no heated debate over the Constitution's drafting, however. The most zealous anti-federalists, loosely headed by Thomas Jefferson, fought against the Constitution's ratification, particularly those amendments which gave the federal government fiscal and monetary powers.

A sort of ideological war raged between the two factions, resulting in the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers , a series of essays written by various figures—some anonymously, some not—for and against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

Ultimately, anti-federalists greatly influenced the document, pushing for strict checks and balances and certain limited political terms that would keep any one branch of the federal government from holding too much power for too long. The Bill of Rights , the term used for the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, are especially about personal, individual rights and freedoms; these were included partly to satisfy anti-federalists.

Prominent Anti-Federalists and Federalists

Among anti-federalists, some of the most prominent figures were Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe . Jefferson was often considered a leader among the anti-federalists. Other prominent anti-federalists included Samuel Adams , Patrick Henry , and Richard Henry Lee .

Alexander Hamilton, a former chief of staff to George Washington, was a proponent of a strong federal government and founded the Federalist Party. He helped oversee the development of a national bank and a taxation system. Other prominent federalists of the time included John Jay and John Adams .

Other figures, such as James Madison , greatly supported Hamilton's federalist intentions for a constitution and national identity, but disagreed with his fiscal policies and were more likely to side with anti-federalists on matters of money. Without Madison's influence, which included acceptance of anti-federalists' desire for a bill of rights, it is unlikely that the U.S. Constitution would have been ratified.

Quotes From Anti-Federalists and Federalists

• "One can hardly expect the state legislatures to take enlightened views on national affairs." —James Madison, Federalist
• "You say that I have been dished up to you as an Anti-Federalist, and ask me if it be just. My opinion was never worthy enough of notice to merit citing; but, since you ask it, I will tell it to you. I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. Therefore, I am not of the party of Federalists." —Thomas Jefferson, Anti-Federalist
• "...that if we are in earnest about giving the Union energy and duration, we must abandon the vain project of legislating upon the States in their collective capacities; we must extend the laws of the federal government to the individual citizens of America; we must discard the fallacious scheme of quotas and requisitions, as equally impracticable and unjust." —Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 23
• "Congress, or our future lords and masters, are to have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. Excise is a new thing in America, and few country farmers and planters know the meaning of it." —A Farmer and Planter (pseudonym) in Anti-Federalist Paper No. 26
• "Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers." —John Jay in Federalist Paper No. 2
• "This being the beginning of American freedom, it is very clear the ending will be slavery, for it cannot be denied that this constitution is, in its first principles , highly and dangerously oligarchical; and it is every where agreed, that a government administered by a few, is, of all governments, the worst." —Leonidas (pseudonym) in Anti-Federalist Paper No. 48
• "It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person: in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region." —James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 14
• 7 quotes from the Federalist Papers - Constitution Center
• American Federalism: Past, Present, and Future - Issues of Democracy
• Anti-Federalists - U.S. History
• Quotes from The Essential Anti-Federalist Papers (PDF) by Bill Bailey
• Federalism - U.S. History
• Federalists - U.S. History
• Thomas Jefferson Exhibition - Library of Congress
• Thomas Jefferson on the New Constitution - Encyclopedia Britannica
• Wikipedia: Articles of Confederation
• Wikipedia: Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution
• Wikipedia: U.S. Constitution
• Wikipedia: United States Bill of Rights#The Anti-Federalists
• Wikipedia: Anti-Federalism
• Wikipedia: Federalism in the United States
• Wikipedia: Federalist#United States
• Wikipedia: Federalist Era
• Wikipedia: Federalist Party

Related Comparisons

Share this comparison via:

If you read this far, you should follow us:

"Anti-Federalist vs Federalist." Diffen.com. Diffen LLC, n.d. Web. 6 Jul 2024. < >

Comments: Anti-Federalist vs Federalist

• Joe Biden vs Donald Trump
• Revolutionary War vs Civil War
• Democracy vs Republic
• Abraham Lincoln vs George Washington
• Left Wing vs Right Wing
• Conservative vs Liberal
• Democrat vs Republican
• Democrat vs Libertarian

Edit or create new comparisons in your area of expertise.

Stay connected

© All rights reserved.

Visit the new and improved Hamilton Education Program website

• AP US History Study Guide
• History U: Courses for High School Students
• History School: Summer Enrichment
• Lesson Plans
• Classroom Resources
• Spotlights on Primary Sources
• Professional Development (Academic Year)
• Professional Development (Summer)
• Book Breaks
• Inside the Vault
• Self-Paced Courses
• Browse All Resources
• Search by Issue
• Search by Essay
• Become a Member (Free)
• Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
• Program Information
• Scholarships and Financial Aid
• Applying and Enrolling
• Eligibility (In-Person)
• EduHam Online
• Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
• Official Website
• Press Coverage
• Veterans Legacy Program
• The Declaration at 250
• Black Lives in the Founding Era
• Celebrating American Historical Holidays
• Browse All Programs
• Donate Items to the Collection
• Search Our Catalog
• Research Guides
• Rights and Reproductions
• See Our Documents on Display
• Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
• Interactive Exhibitions Online
• About the Transcription Program
• Civil War Letters
• Founding Era Newspapers
• College Fellowships in American History
• Scholarly Fellowship Program
• Richard Gilder History Prize
• David McCullough Essay Prize
• Affiliate School Scholarships
• Nominate a Teacher
• State Winners
• National Winners
• Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
• Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
• George Washington Prize
• Frederick Douglass Book Prize
• Our Mission and History
• Annual Report
• Contact Information
• Student Advisory Council
• Teacher Advisory Council
• Board of Trustees
• Remembering Richard Gilder
• President's Council
• Scholarly Advisory Board
• Internships
• Our Partners
• Press Releases

History Resources

Ratifying the US Constitution: Federalists v. Anti-Federalists and the State Debates, 1787-1788

By tim bailey.

Click here to download this five-lesson unit.

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.

Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.

U.S. Constitution.net

Federalist vs Anti-Federalist Debate

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist debate shaped the United States Constitution and continues to influence American governance. This discourse between two ideological camps highlights the tensions and compromises that formed the nation's foundational principles, balancing power and individual liberties.

Origins of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Debate

The Articles of Confederation initially united the states but proved inadequate. Congress lacked power to levy taxes or regulate interstate commerce, leading to economic instability and unrest. Events like Shays' Rebellion (1786-87) highlighted the need for a stronger central government.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia brought together key figures like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay to craft a new governing document. Their goal was to balance power while preventing both tyranny and ineffectiveness.

Federalists, including Madison and Hamilton, argued for a strong national government to unify the states and ensure stability. This view appealed to urban and commercial regions. Anti-Federalists, like Patrick Henry and George Mason, feared potential tyranny and preferred localized government where individuals had more influence.

The lack of explicit individual liberties protection became a major point of contention. Anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights to safeguard against governmental overreach.

Both sides advocated their views through essays and pamphlets. The Federalists penned the Federalist Papers , while Anti-Federalists wrote the Anti-Federalist Papers , critiquing the proposed Constitution.

Eventually, compromise prevailed. The promise of a Bill of Rights was key to winning support for ratification. This debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists formed the foundation of America's enduring political discourse, shaping the balance of power between states and the federal government.

Key Arguments of the Federalists

Federalists championed a strong central government to address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. They argued that a unified authority was necessary for the nation to thrive.

The Federalist Papers , a collection of 85 essays by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, explained and defended the proposed Constitution. Key arguments included:

• Protection against factions: Madison's Federalist No. 10 argued that a large republic would prevent any single faction from dominating others.
• National defense and finance: Hamilton's Federalist No. 23 stressed the need for a strong central government to provide for common defense and manage national finances.
• Checks and balances: Madison's Federalist No. 51 outlined the system of separate powers among executive, legislative, and judicial branches to prevent any branch from usurping too much power.
• Unity among Americans: John Jay's Federalist No. 2 emphasized shared ancestry, language, and principles as a foundation for centralized government.

Federalists highlighted the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation, citing events like Shays' Rebellion as evidence that a weak federal government could not maintain order or protect property rights.

Their vision was of a balanced government strong enough to command respect abroad while ensuring justice and order at home. This perspective was crucial in the debates leading to the Constitution's ratification and continues to influence American governance.

Key Arguments of the Anti-Federalists

Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution due to concerns about the dangers of a strong central government. Their arguments were rooted in recent experiences with British rule and a desire to protect individual liberty.

Key Anti-Federalist concerns included:

• Erosion of state autonomy: They feared that consolidating power at the national level would reduce states to mere administrative arms of a distant government.
• Lack of a Bill of Rights: The absence of explicit guarantees for individual liberties in the original Constitution was a major point of contention.
• Judicial overreach: Anti-Federalists warned that the proposed judiciary could interpret laws to its own advantage, potentially leading to tyranny.
• Executive power: They argued that the office of the President could evolve into a de facto monarchy given its extensive powers.
• Preference for localized government: Anti-Federalists believed that direct citizen involvement in state matters provided a crucial check on governmental power.
• Impracticality of a large republic: They contended that true democracy could only flourish in small, localized republics where citizens could actively participate in governance.

The Anti-Federalist critique led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, addressing many concerns regarding individual liberties. Their vigilance has left an enduring mark on the nation's constitutional heritage, ensuring that liberty remains a central pillar of the American Republic.

"The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can, and undoubtedly will, be recalled." 1

The debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists contributed to the resilient framework of the U.S. Constitution and continues to shape discussions on the balance between federal authority and state autonomy in modern American political life.

The Compromise: The Bill of Rights

The ratification of the Constitution hinged on addressing Anti-Federalist concerns about individual rights protection. James Madison, initially skeptical, recognized the need to address these worries to achieve ratification. The Bill of Rights emerged as a compromise, carefully crafted to address fears of governmental overreach and secure fundamental liberties.

The First Amendment enshrines freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. The Second Amendment addresses concerns about federal control over state militias. Amendments Three through Eight anchor citizens' protections within the legal system, including safeguards against arbitrary searches, protections for the accused, and prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments play a vital role in the federal structure, acknowledging unenumerated rights and reinforcing state sovereignty. This compromise reassured a wary populace that their freedoms would be preserved against potential governmental encroachments.

The Bill of Rights exemplified the Founding Fathers' ability to adapt and incorporate constructive criticism into the new governance framework.

It continues to serve as a cornerstone of American democracy, influencing judicial interpretations and protecting individual freedoms in a constantly changing society.

Impact on Modern American Politics

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist debates continue to shape modern American politics, particularly in discussions of governance, individual liberties, and the balance of power.

Key Areas of Ongoing Debate:

• States' Rights: Evident in healthcare, environmental regulations, and education policy debates.
• Individual Liberties: Particularly Second Amendment rights and gun control measures.
• Balance of Power: Tested through executive orders, judicial review, and legislative authority.
• Supreme Court Arbitration: Cases like Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) demonstrate ongoing relevance.
• Environmental Policies: Federal standards often clash with state priorities.
• Voting Rights: Federal oversight balances individual rights protection with state autonomy.
• Digital Age Concerns: Privacy and governmental surveillance debates echo Anti-Federalist concerns.

The Affordable Care Act, for instance, sparked controversy over federal authority to mandate healthcare provisions, echoing Anti-Federalist objections to federal overreach 1 . Environmental policies further explore this discourse, with federal efforts to establish standards often clashing with state priorities, as seen in recent debates over the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act 2 .

In the digital age, debates over privacy and governmental surveillance echo Anti-Federalist concerns about individual freedoms. The Patriot Act and subsequent expansions of government surveillance capabilities have reignited discussions about federal overreach and personal liberties 3 .

The ongoing evolution of these debates underscores the flexibility and enduring wisdom embedded in the United States Constitution, securing its place as a guiding document through centuries of change.

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist debate continues to inform the balance of power in American politics, ensuring that the principles upon which the nation was founded remain relevant and vital. This ongoing dialogue underscores the resilience of the constitutional framework in adapting to new challenges while maintaining its core values.

Federalists and Antifederalists Debate a Bill of Rights

Introduction

During the final week of the Convention, Edmund Randolph clearly felt uneasy about the final draft of the Constitution that emerged from the Committee of Style Report. He called for a second convention and that became a persistent theme of the Antifederalists from Virginia and New York who wanted to return to the structure of the Articles of Confederation . On the other hand, George Mason, author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights , expressed his wish that “the plan had been prefaced with a Bill of Rights [It] would give great quiet to the people” and would be easy to prepare given the presence of state declarations. His motion, supported only by Elbridge Gerry, was deemed unnecessary.

Apparently, Mason left Philadelphia very upset with what had taken place. Writing to Jefferson on October 24, 1787, Madison notes that “Col. Mason left Phila. in an exceeding ill humor indeed. A number of little circumstances arising in part from the impatience which prevailed toward the close of business, conspired to whet his acrimony. He returned to Virginia with a fixed disposition to prevent the adoption of the plan if possible. He considers the want of a Bill of Rights as a fatal objection.” Madison concludes: “His conduct has given great umbrage to the Count of Fairfax, and particularly to the Town of Alexandria. He is already instructed to promote in the Assembly the calling of a Convention, and will probably be either not deputed to the Convention, or be tied up by his express instructions.”

By the Summer of 1787, with the exception of the omission by the Constitutional Convention, there was an emerging “deliberate sense of the community” that a bill of rights either preface or be inserted within constitutional documents. And that Americans, as Jefferson remarked in the remarkable exchanges with Madison, had become used to a bill of rights and was something to be expected by all lovers of free government. And, however good the work of the Constitution, there was still the need to make the union more perfect.

Opponents of ratification of the Constitution argued that the absence of a bill of rights demonstrated that rights were insecure under the proposed Constitution. They considered the proponents’ arguments to be ingenious at best: how could the Constitution be a bill of rights (an argument proposed by James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton), yet include certain rights, (Hamilton pointed to Article I, Section 9 ) and then ignore such fundamental rights as freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and trial by jury? How could one grant Congress the power of governing ( Article I, Section 8 ) and constitutional supremacy over state laws, ( Article VI ) and still argue that the Constitution is a document in which, according to Wilson, in his State House Speech , “everything which is not given, is reserved?” Thus argued the Antifederalist Brutus.

But lurking under this Antifederalist support for a traditional bill of rights to limit the reach of government were a more strident group of Antifederalists who favored amendment proposals that would alter the power and structure of the new federal government back in the direction of the Articles of Confederation . It is imperative to the unfolding of the political dimension of the Bill of Rights that the distinction between amendments to the Constitution and a bill of rights be kept distinct. The fact that, in the end, the U. S. Bill of Rights appears as 10 Amendments to the Constitution is the result of the politics of the First Congress and the shifting meaning and use of language that took place at the time of the American Founding. See, for example, the shift in the meaning of both republicanism and federalism.

Interestingly, even after the requisite nine states ratified the Constitution, Mason and Gerry became more and more interested in amendments that altered the structure and powers of the new government and less and less interested in limiting its reach by means of a bill of rights. Once the Constitution was ratified, Madison in the First Congress occupied the position formerly held by Mason and Gerry at the Philadelphia Convention.

Constitutional Convention and the Early Federalist/Antifederalist Exchange (September 1787 to December 1787)

• Edmund Randolph’s Objections (September 10, 1787) Edmund Randolph lists twelve objections he had to signing the Constitution. He would, however, sign with the understanding that “another general Convention” would be called “with full power to adopt or reject the alterations proposed by the State Conventions.”
• George Mason’s Call for a Bill of Rights (September 12, 1787) The Committee of Style Report was presented on September 10. On September 12, George Mason supported by Elbridge Gerry moved that a committee be created to prepare a prefatory Bill of Rights modeled on “the state declarations.”
• George Mason’s Objections to the Constitution (September 13, 1787) The first of George Mason’s ten objections to the Constitution begins: “There is no declaration of rights.” In particular, “there is no declaration of any kind for preserving liberty of the press, the trial by jury in civil cases, nor against the danger of standing armies in times of peace.” Mason’s position is that a federal bill of rights is both imperative and valuable. He was concerned that Congress may abuse the supremacy clause and the necessary and proper clause. The supremacy clause makes federal laws “paramount to the laws and constitutions of the several states.” Thus, “the declaration of rights, in the separate states, are of no security.” The necessary and proper clause enables Congress to “grant monopolies in trade and commerce, constitute new crimes, inflict unusual and sever punishments, and extend their power as far as they should think proper.”
• State House Speech by James Wilson (October 6, 1787) James Wilson’s “State House” speech was the first official defense of the Constitution and responds directly to the objections George Mason had expressed during the last month of the Convention. It was published in the Pennsylvania Herald and widely distributed as “an authoritative explanation” of the Constitution. Wilson argued that at the state level, a bill of rights is necessary and salutory because “everything which is not reserved, is given,” but “superfluous and absurd” at the federal level because “everything which is not given, is reserved.” Wilson’s theory of “distinction” was invoked by both supporters and opponents.
• Letter from Richard Henry Lee to Edmund Randolph (October 16, 1787) This letter from Lee to Randolph contains a list of proposed amendments. Lee originally presented them in one continuous paragraph; to assist the reader, we have broken the paragraph down into fourteen thematic divisions. Lee reiterates Mason’s claim that a bill of rights is necessary and proper and articulates the traditional argument that a bill of rights is needed to protect the people from the tyranny of the few in power.
• Elbridge Gerry’s Objections to the Constitution (October 18, 1787) The Antifederalist Elbridge Gerry submits to the Massachusetts Legislature his principal reasons for not signing the Constitution on September 17, 1787, stating “…there is no adequate provision for a representation of the people; that they have no security for the right of election; that some of the powers of the Legislature are ambiguous, and others indefinite and dangerous, that the Executive is blended with and will have an undue influence over the Legislature; that the judicial department will be oppressive; that treaties of the highest importance may be formed by the President with the advice of two thirds of a quorum of the Senate; and that the system is without the security of a bill of rights.” He urges that the plan be amended before being adopted.
• Brutus II Essay (November 1, 1787) In the second of sixteen essays that he published in the New York Journal , the prominent New York Antifederalist, Brutus, concurs with the arguments of Mason and Lee. There was no doubt in his mind that the new plan of government – separation of powers, bicameralism, and federalism to the contrary notwithstanding – concentrated power in the hands of the few. There is also remarkable uniformity, says Brutus, to the specific individual rights that need protection: right of conscience, freedom of the press, freedom of association, no unreasonable searches and seizures, trial by jury in civil cases, and no cruel and unusual punishment.
• Federalist No. 10 (November 22, 1787) Madison argued that the best security for individual rights is the promotion of an extensive system of opposite and rival interests that, in turn, are filtered into the institutions of government by means of a scheme of representation.
• The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania (December 18, 1787) Even though Pennsylvania voted to ratify the Constitution, the Report issued by the twenty-three Pennsylvania opponents had a considerable impact on the subsequent campaign. The Report proposed two different kinds of amendments. On the one hand, the minority called for amendments that would re-establish the principles of the Articles of Confederation. These were unfriendly to the Constitution. On the other hand, they proposed that a declaration of rights be annexed into the Constitution. What became the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments to the Constitution were included in their list.

Proposing a Bill of Rights and Later Ratification (January 1788 to July 1788)

• Federalist No. 37 (January 11, 1788) This is the first of 15 essays by Madison on the “great difficulties” facing the Founders in Philadelphia. Madison informs his readers that “a faultless plan was not to be expected.” He reminds his readers that “experience has instructed us that no skill in the science of government has yet been able to discriminate and define with sufficient certainty, its three great provinces: –the legislative, executive, and judiciary.”
• Federalist No. 51 (February 6, 1788) This is the last of 15 essays by Madison on the “great difficulties” facing the Founders in Philadelphia. Madison argues that “in a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects.” Madison’s larger argument is that, although difficult, government must be structured so that each branch can check and balance each other thus securing political freedom.
• Amendments Proposed during the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention (February 6, 1788)
• Amendments Proposed during the South Carolina Ratifying Convention (May 23, 1788)
• Amendments Proposed during the New Hampshire Ratifying Convention (June 21, 1788)
• Bill of Rights and Amendments Proposed during the Virginia Ratifying Convention (June 25, 1788)
• Federalist No. 84 (July 16, 1788) Another distinction to which Federalists appealed was the difference between a monarchy and a republic. In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton remarks that “bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.” Federalist 84 was the first to deal directly with the Bill of Rights controversy.
• Bill of Rights and Amendments Proposed during the New York Ratifying Convention (July 26, 1788)
• The Madison-Jefferson Exchange on Ratification and the Bill of Rights Part 1, (December 1787 through July 1788) The correspondence between Madison in the United States and Jefferson in Paris is a critical part of the story of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Madison summarized the political problem that was to be solved by the Constitution: “To prevent instability and injustice in the legislation of the States.” What Madison was able to achieve, he explained, was the creation of an extended republic that would secure the civil and religious rights of individuals from the danger of majority faction. Jefferson responded favorably, but was troubled by James Wilson’s argument that a bill of rights was unnecessary. He reminded Madison that “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

Receive resources and noteworthy updates.

The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The federalists and the anti-federalists were two movements in the late eighteenth century. The key similarity between them is that both groups were prominent at the times of change for the young United States. Both movements had strong views regarding the necessity of the federal government and valued unity to spread their ideas (Cornell 21). Additionally, the representatives of both movements tried to influence society’s perceptions of the best approach to constitutional communication (Cornell 21). However, the details of their views regarding government structures and the philosophy of power distribution were drastically different and almost mutually exclusive.

The differences between the movements range from philosophical views to the social characteristics of members. The federalist movement was more attractive for wealthier individuals, viewed power centralization as an opportunity to promote economic growth, and valued individual expertise and rationalist thought (Gatica 131). The anti-federalists viewed the opponents’ values as the sources of risk for the entire country and placed emphasis on localism and the preservation of each state’s autonomy (Gatica 135). Their perspectives on elitism were also antipodal: the federalists’ idea of the ruler was closer to Plato’s “perfect” philosopher king (Gatica 132). The anti-federalists did not tolerate inequality in access to knowledge and insisted on the need for equitable/fair relationships between common people and their official representatives (Gatica 135). This aspect of the disagreement between them had implications for their views on class-based differences in the right to be called virtuous and common citizens’ right to designate representatives. As per anti-federalist thought, the virtue resided in common people, thus granting them access to participation in political processes (Gatica 135). Their opponents seemed to be positive about the monopoly on virtue and decision-making power of the ruling class.

Works Cited

Cornell, Saul. “Constitutional Meaning and Semantic Instability: Federalists and Anti-Federalists on the Nature of Constitutional Language.” American Journal of Legal History , vol. 56, no. 1, 2016, pp. 21-28.

Gatica, Obed Frausto. “Federalist and Anti-Federalist: Two Divergent Concepts of Politics.” Studia Philosophica Wratislaviensia , vol. 14, no. 1, 2019, pp. 129-143.

• The Institution of the US Supreme Court
• Best Practises When Selecting Judges
• James Madison and the United States Constitution
• Elitism vs. Egalitarianism
• The US Constitution Ratification Dispute
• Famous Cases Is Obergefell v. Hodges
• The Process of Impeachment in the United States
• Illegal Police Actions. Fourth Amendments.
• Law in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Critical Analysis
• International Commercial Arbitration: New York Convention 1958
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, September 8). The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-federalists-and-the-anti-federalists/

"The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists." IvyPanda , 8 Sept. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/the-federalists-and-the-anti-federalists/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists'. 8 September.

IvyPanda . 2022. "The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists." September 8, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-federalists-and-the-anti-federalists/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists." September 8, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-federalists-and-the-anti-federalists/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists." September 8, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-federalists-and-the-anti-federalists/.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Federalist Papers

By: History.com Editors

Updated: June 22, 2023 | Original: November 9, 2009

The Federalist Papers are a collection of essays written in the 1780s in support of the proposed U.S. Constitution and the strong federal government it advocated. In October 1787, the first in a series of 85 essays arguing for ratification of the Constitution appeared in the Independent Journal , under the pseudonym “Publius.” Addressed to “The People of the State of New York,” the essays were actually written by the statesmen Alexander Hamilton , James Madison and John Jay . They would be published serially from 1787-88 in several New York newspapers. The first 77 essays, including Madison’s famous Federalist 10 and Federalist 51 , appeared in book form in 1788. Titled The Federalist , it has been hailed as one of the most important political documents in U.S. history.

Articles of Confederation

As the first written constitution of the newly independent United States, the Articles of Confederation nominally granted Congress the power to conduct foreign policy, maintain armed forces and coin money.

But in practice, this centralized government body had little authority over the individual states, including no power to levy taxes or regulate commerce, which hampered the new nation’s ability to pay its outstanding debts from the Revolutionary War .

In May 1787, 55 delegates gathered in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation and the problems that had arisen from this weakened central government.

A New Constitution

The document that emerged from the Constitutional Convention went far beyond amending the Articles, however. Instead, it established an entirely new system, including a robust central government divided into legislative , executive and judicial branches.

As soon as 39 delegates signed the proposed Constitution in September 1787, the document went to the states for ratification, igniting a furious debate between “Federalists,” who favored ratification of the Constitution as written, and “Antifederalists,” who opposed the Constitution and resisted giving stronger powers to the national government.

How Did Magna Carta Influence the U.S. Constitution?

The 13th‑century pact inspired the U.S. Founding Fathers as they wrote the documents that would shape the nation.

The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart

The Constitution's framers viewed political parties as a necessary evil.

Checks and Balances

Separation of Powers The idea that a just and fair government must divide power between various branches did not originate at the Constitutional Convention, but has deep philosophical and historical roots. In his analysis of the government of Ancient Rome, the Greek statesman and historian Polybius identified it as a “mixed” regime with three branches: […]

The Rise of Publius

In New York, opposition to the Constitution was particularly strong, and ratification was seen as particularly important. Immediately after the document was adopted, Antifederalists began publishing articles in the press criticizing it.

They argued that the document gave Congress excessive powers and that it could lead to the American people losing the hard-won liberties they had fought for and won in the Revolution.

In response to such critiques, the New York lawyer and statesman Alexander Hamilton, who had served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, decided to write a comprehensive series of essays defending the Constitution, and promoting its ratification.

Who Wrote the Federalist Papers?

As a collaborator, Hamilton recruited his fellow New Yorker John Jay, who had helped negotiate the treaty ending the war with Britain and served as secretary of foreign affairs under the Articles of Confederation. The two later enlisted the help of James Madison, another delegate to the Constitutional Convention who was in New York at the time serving in the Confederation Congress.

To avoid opening himself and Madison to charges of betraying the Convention’s confidentiality, Hamilton chose the pen name “Publius,” after a general who had helped found the Roman Republic. He wrote the first essay, which appeared in the Independent Journal, on October 27, 1787.

In it, Hamilton argued that the debate facing the nation was not only over ratification of the proposed Constitution, but over the question of “whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”

After writing the next four essays on the failures of the Articles of Confederation in the realm of foreign affairs, Jay had to drop out of the project due to an attack of rheumatism; he would write only one more essay in the series. Madison wrote a total of 29 essays, while Hamilton wrote a staggering 51.

Federalist Papers Summary

In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Jay and Madison argued that the decentralization of power that existed under the Articles of Confederation prevented the new nation from becoming strong enough to compete on the world stage or to quell internal insurrections such as Shays’s Rebellion .

In addition to laying out the many ways in which they believed the Articles of Confederation didn’t work, Hamilton, Jay and Madison used the Federalist essays to explain key provisions of the proposed Constitution, as well as the nature of the republican form of government.

'Federalist 10'

In Federalist 10 , which became the most influential of all the essays, Madison argued against the French political philosopher Montesquieu ’s assertion that true democracy—including Montesquieu’s concept of the separation of powers—was feasible only for small states.

A larger republic, Madison suggested, could more easily balance the competing interests of the different factions or groups (or political parties ) within it. “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests,” he wrote. “[Y]ou make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens[.]”

After emphasizing the central government’s weakness in law enforcement under the Articles of Confederation in Federalist 21-22 , Hamilton dove into a comprehensive defense of the proposed Constitution in the next 14 essays, devoting seven of them to the importance of the government’s power of taxation.

Madison followed with 20 essays devoted to the structure of the new government, including the need for checks and balances between the different powers.

'Federalist 51'

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” Madison wrote memorably in Federalist 51 . “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

After Jay contributed one more essay on the powers of the Senate , Hamilton concluded the Federalist essays with 21 installments exploring the powers held by the three branches of government—legislative, executive and judiciary.

Impact of the Federalist Papers

Despite their outsized influence in the years to come, and their importance today as touchstones for understanding the Constitution and the founding principles of the U.S. government, the essays published as The Federalist in 1788 saw limited circulation outside of New York at the time they were written. They also fell short of convincing many New York voters, who sent far more Antifederalists than Federalists to the state ratification convention.

Still, in July 1788, a slim majority of New York delegates voted in favor of the Constitution, on the condition that amendments would be added securing certain additional rights. Though Hamilton had opposed this (writing in Federalist 84 that such a bill was unnecessary and could even be harmful) Madison himself would draft the Bill of Rights in 1789, while serving as a representative in the nation’s first Congress.

HISTORY Vault: The American Revolution

Stream American Revolution documentaries and your favorite HISTORY series, commercial-free.

Ron Chernow, Hamilton (Penguin, 2004). Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (Simon & Schuster, 2010). “If Men Were Angels: Teaching the Constitution with the Federalist Papers.” Constitutional Rights Foundation . Dan T. Coenen, “Fifteen Curious Facts About the Federalist Papers.” University of Georgia School of Law , April 1, 2007. 

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• Library of Congress
• Research Guides
• Main Reading Room

Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History

Full text of the federalist papers.

• Introduction
• Federalist Nos. 1-10
• Federalist Nos. 11-20
• Federalist Nos. 21-30
• Federalist Nos. 31-40
• Federalist Nos. 41-50
• Federalist Nos. 51-60
• Federalist Nos. 61-70
• Federalist Nos. 71-80
• Federalist Nos. 81-85
• Related Digital Resources
• External Websites
• Print Resources

History, Humanities & Social Sciences : Ask a Librarian

Have a question? Need assistance? Use our online form to ask a librarian for help.

Chat with a librarian , Monday through Friday, 12-4pm Eastern Time (except Federal Holidays).

The Federalist , commonly referred to as the Federalist Papers, is a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," in various New York state newspapers of the time.

The Federalist Papers were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. For this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were each members of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers are often used today to help interpret the intentions of those drafting the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers were published primarily in two New York state newspapers: The New York Packet and The Independent Journal . They were reprinted in other newspapers in New York state and in several cities in other states. A bound edition, with revisions and corrections by Hamilton, was published in 1788 by printers J. and A. McLean. An edition published by printer Jacob Gideon in 1818, with revisions and corrections by Madison, was the first to identify each essay by its author's name. Because of its publishing history, the assignment of authorship, numbering, and exact wording may vary with different editions of The Federalist .

The electronic text of The Federalist used here was compiled for Project Gutenberg by scholars who drew on many available versions of the papers.

One printed edition of the text is The Federalist , edited by Jacob E. Cooke (Middletown, Conn., Wesleyan University Press, 1961). Cooke's introduction provides background information on the printing history of The Federalist; the information provided above comes in part from his work.

This web-friendly presentation of the original text of the Federalist Papers (also known as The Federalist) was obtained from the e-text archives of Project Gutenberg. Any irregularities with regard to grammar, syntax, spelling, or punctuation are as they exist in the original e-text archives.

Table of Contents

• << Previous: Introduction
• Next: Federalist Nos. 1-10 >>
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 10:16 AM
• URL: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, constitution 101 resources, 5.3 info brief: the anti-federalists.

This activity is part of  M odule 5: The Bill of Rights  from the  Constitution 101 Curriculum . 

Who were the Anti-Federalists?

The Anti-Federalists opposed the new Constitution.

The Anti-Federalist camp included a group of founding-era heavyweights, including: 

• Virginia’s George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee
• Massachusetts’s Samuel Adams, Elbridge Gerry, and Mercy Otis Warren
• New York’s powerful Governor George Clinton

What about the rank-and-file Anti-Federalists? Generally speaking, Anti-Federalists were more likely to be small farmers than lawyers or merchants.

In addition, Anti-Federalist support was stronger:

• Out West rather than in the East
• In rural areas rather than in the cities
• In large states rather than in small states

While many Americans know about the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalists included their own set of powerful authors—every bit as politically potent and theoretically sophisticated as their Federalist opponents. For instance, there’s “Brutus”—usually thought to be leading New York Anti-Federalists (and one-time Constitutional Convention delegate) Robert Yates—and his influential set of essays. In addition, Massachusetts poet, historian, and patriot Mercy Otis Warren penned her own widely read Observations on the New Constitution, using the pen name “A Columbian Patriot.” Finally, other key Anti-Federalist writers included Federal Farmer (likely New York’s Melancton Smith or Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee) and Centinel (Pennsylvania’s Samuel Bryan).

What were some of the Anti-Federalists’ main reasons for opposing the new Constitution?

In many ways, the ratification battle was a debate over political power—and where to place it. In other words, it was a battle over federalism—the question of how much power to give to the national government and how much power to keep with the states.

While the Federalists argued for a stronger national government, the Anti-Federalists defended a vision of America rooted in powerful states. 

The Anti-Federalists feared that the new Constitution gave the national government too much power. And that this new government—led by a new group of distant, out-of-touch political elites—would:

• Seize all political power
• Swallow up the states—the governments that were closest to the people themselves
• Abuse the rights of the American people

For the Anti-Federalists, this was the road to tyranny.

Remember, Americans at the founding rarely traveled outside of their own towns. For them, the nation’s capital—though located in New York, Philadelphia, and (eventually) Washington, D.C.—might as well have been in London. So, the Anti-Federalists weren’t interested in replacing a powerful, out-of-touch, distant government in Great Britain with a new one in some distant American city. Better to keep most political power at the state and local level—where it had always been in America—and limit the powers of the national government.

In the end, the Anti-Federalists faced an uphill fight during the battle over ratification. Americans had largely concluded that the Articles of Confederation had serious problems. Even many key Anti-Federalists agreed with that.

Furthermore, to win political battles, it often takes a plan to beat a plan. The Federalists had a plan—the new Constitution. The Anti-Federalists didn’t.

As a result, it was easy for the Federalists to frame the ratification fight as a battle between a new Constitution and the deeply flawed Articles of Confederation.

Even so, the Anti-Federalists almost won.

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

• Lesson Plans
• Teacher's Guides
• Media Resources

Lesson 1: Anti-federalist Arguments Against "A Complete Consolidation"

Patrick Henry, an anti-federalist, speaking in the Virginia House of Burgesses, May 1765.

Throughout 1787-88, as Americans continued to debate the proposed Constitution, one of the most contentious issues was whether the Union – tightened into one indissoluble nation under a federal government – could be maintained without doing away with both liberty and the state governments. Anti-federalist Brutus (generally assumed to be New York delegate Robert Yates) summarized the issue thus:

“The first question that presents itself on the subject is…whether the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic…or whether they should continue thirteen confederated republics, under the direction and control of a supreme federal head for certain defined national purposes only?”

This lesson will focus on the chief objections of the Anti-federalists, especially The Federal Farmer (Richard Henry Lee), Centinel (Samuel Bryan), and Brutus (Robert Yates), regarding the extended republic. Students will become familiar with the larger issues surrounding this debate, including the nature of the American Union, the difficulties of uniting such a vast territory with a diverse multitude of regional interests, and the challenges of maintaining a free republic as the American people moved toward becoming a nation rather than a mere confederation of individual states.

Guiding Questions

What are the merits of the Anti-federalist argument that an extended republic will lead to the destruction of liberty and self-government?

What is the proper role of a federal government?

To what extent have the Anti-federalists’ fears about a consolidated government proved true over time?

Learning Objectives

Understand and be able to apply what Anti-federalists meant by the terms “extended republic” or “consolidated republic.”

Analyze and rank the problems the Anti-federalists believed would arise from extending the republic over a vast territory.

Assess the nature and purpose of representation in a republic and the degree to which this has served to advance democracy. 

Evaluate the following position of the Anti-Federalists: Representation in a large republic will lead to abuse of power by those in national office or the use of force to execute the laws.

Lesson Plan Details

After the Constitutional Convention of 1787 had ended and the proposed Constitution had been submitted to the American people for ratification, public debates raged between those who supported the Constitution (Federalists) and those who opposed it (Anti-federalists). One of the central issues in the debates was whether it would be possible to unite the thirteen states into one great nation, under one federal government, in such a way that the individual states and their respective governments would not be eliminated – and with them, the means of securing the liberties of the citizens of America. This question, in fact, had been one of the most important questions at the Convention, and had kept delegates preoccupied for the better part of half the time they had spent in Philadelphia. Delegates such as James Madison and James Wilson had put forward a plan that would transform the American Union from a loose confederation of sovereign and independent states – as they were considered to be under the Articles of Confederation – to a nation of one people, living in thirteen states, under a federal system that strengthened the national government but still left certain powers and responsibilities to the government of each state. This was accomplished, in the end, by altering the scheme of representation: under the Articles of Confederation, each state legislature selected delegates to a unicameral Congress, and each state delegation had an equal vote on all national matters; under the proposed Constitution, a bicameral Congress was created, and each state sent a proportional number of delegates, elected directly by the people of that state. The effect was that under the new federal arrangement, the Union was no longer to be based simply on a “league of friendship” between sovereign and independent states, but on a contract between all Americans united in one nation – a nation that was already vast by historical standards and that promised further growth in the future.

The question of the nature of the American Union carried over into the Federalist and Anti-federalist debates – both groups, in fact, took their names either from their support or opposition to the proposed changes to the nature of the American Union. Should the United States remain a loose connection of thirteen smaller republics, or could they be united into one larger republic? The Anti-federalists generally agreed that the project of consolidating into one great republic should be rejected. As the Anti-federalist “The Federal Farmer” (believed to be Richard Henry Lee) wrote in 1787, “The first interesting question, therefore suggested, is, how far the states can be consolidated into one entire government on free principles…If we are so situated as a people, as not to be able to enjoy equal happiness and advantages under one government, the consolidation of the states cannot be admitted.” The Federal Farmer explains that there are three possible “forms” that the Union could take. First, it could retain its form as existing under the Articles of Confederation, in which “the respective state governments must be the principal guardians of the people’s rights, and exclusively regulate their internal police; in them must rest the balance of government. The congress of the states, or federal head, must consist of delegates amenable to, and removable by the respective states.” The second option, according to the Federal Farmer, is to “do away [with the] state governments, and form or consolidate all the states into one entire government.” The Federal Farmer rejects these first two options in favor of a third, in which a partial consolidation takes place, or, as he puts it, “We may consolidate the states as to certain national objects, and leave them severally distinct independent republics, as to internal police generally.” Although he favors this “partial consolidation” in theory, the Federal Farmer rejects the proposed constitution because in time – due to the lack of safeguards for the rights of citizens and the reserved powers of the states – a complete consolidation of power on the national level is inevitable. “The convention appears to have proposed the partial consolidation evidently with a view to collect all powers ultimately,” wrote the Federal Farmer, “in the United States into one entire government.”

One of the chief objections of Anti-federalists was that the new national government would likely not be able to efficiently govern an extent of territory as vast as the United States. “[I]n a republic of such vast extent as the United-States,” wrote Brutus (believed to be Robert Yates of New York), “the legislature cannot attend to the various concerns and wants of its different parts.” Other Anti-federalists objected that such a system would only work if the national government gradually usurped all powers from the states, resulting in what they called a “consolidated” government. With the United States thus “melted down into one empire,” Anti-federalists argued that the national government would likely resort to force to maintain the Union and ensure compliance to national laws. As Centinel (believed to be Samuel Bryan of Pennsylvania) wrote, “It would not be difficult to prove, that any thing short of despotism, could not bind so great a country under one government.” The result, Anti-federalists believed, would be a powerful tyranny, in which the national government exercised its virtually unlimited powers to oppress the people and deprive them of their liberty. “A free republic,” Brutus concluded, “cannot long subsist over a country of the great extent of these states.”

Brutus elaborated on the disadvantages that must be felt from the attempt to create such a vast republic under one federal government. “If respect is to be paid to the opinion of the greatest and wisest men who have ever thought or wrote on the science of government,” wrote Brutus, “we shall be constrained to conclude, that a free republic cannot succeed over a country of such immense extent, containing such a number of inhabitants, and these increasing in such rapid progression as that of the whole United States.” History furnishes no example, Brutus says, of a large republic that did not eventually succumb to the political evils of disintegration or tyranny. The greatest flaw in an extended republic, Brutus believed, is that it would be impossible for legislative representatives to adequately know and act upon the interests of their constituents. The proposed Constitution would allow no more than one representative in the House for every 30,000 constituents, which would lead to a relatively small number of delegates in the national legislature. Federalists such as James Madison believed that a small number was necessary to prevent the House from being overcrowded and mob-like in character. Brutus agreed with Madison on this, but this just proved his point: the national legislature must have either too many members (and thus be unwieldy and inefficient) or too few members, in which case the interests of the constituents would not properly be represented.

Brutus and fellow Anti-federalist Centinel agreed that this problem of representation in a large republic would likely lead, eventually, to the emergence of either rebellion or tyranny in America. “It would not be difficult to prove,” wrote Centinel, “that any thing short of despotism, could not bind so great a country under one government.” In a large republic, Brutus argued, with relatively few representatives, constituents will not know their representative and vice versa. The result will be that the people “will have no confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious views, be jealous of every measure they adopt, and will not support the laws they pass.” Without the voluntary support of the people, Brutus writes, the only way the national government could ensure prompt and efficient execution of the laws would be “by establishing an armed force to execute the laws at the point of the bayonet — a government of all others the most to be dreaded.” The small number of representatives – and their remoteness from the watchful eye of their constituents – would also lead them to “become above the controul of the people, and [to] abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them.”

The vast extent of the American Republic would also bring other disadvantages, especially to the people of those states most remote from the seat of the national government. With the institution of a federal court system, citizens would be forced to travel great distances – a lengthy and expensive undertaking at the time – in order to bring legal suits or defend themselves at trials in federal courts. “I think it one of the greatest benefits in a good government,” wrote the Federal Farmer, “that each citizen should find a court of justice within a reasonable distance, perhaps, within a day’s travel of his home; so that, without great inconveniences and enormous expenses, he may have the advantages of his witnesses and jury.”

One of the strongest objections that Anti-federalists made against the extended republic was that it would consist of a great multitude of diverse interests, which would not only be inadequately represented in the national legislature, but would also serve as an obstacle to complete unity as one people and one nation. “In a republic,” writes Brutus, “the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other.” In the extended American Republic (consisting of “near three millions of souls” and growing) a wide variety of occupations – “professional men, merchants, traders, farmers, mechanics, &c.” – is made even more diverse by the differences in climate, manners and habits from state to state, not to mention the complexity of local laws and customs. Harmony among the citizens and cooperation in Congress could hardly be expected in such a vast nation; rather such a Union “would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.” All of these difficulties led the Anti-federalists to conclude that the project of melting the states “down into one empire” in “so extended a territory” would be worse than in vain – it would, in fact, lead to the loss of liberty and to the eventual dissolution of the Union altogether.

For more background information, the EDSITEment-reviewed resource “Ratification of the Constitution” website at Teaching American History offers useful texts and timelines of the Federalist and Anti-federalist debates, including their arguments regarding the extended republic.

NCSS.D1.1.9-12. Explain how a question reflects an enduring issue in the field.

NCSS.D2.Civ.3.9-12. Analyze the impact of constitutions, laws, treaties, and international agreements on the maintenance of national and international order.

NCSS.D2.Civ.4.9-12. Explain how the U.S. Constitution establishes a system of government that has powers, responsibilities, and limits that have changed over time and that are still contested.

NCSS.D2.Civ.5.9-12. Evaluate citizens’ and institutions’ effectiveness in addressing social and political problems at the local, state, tribal, national, and/or international level.

NCSS.D2.His.3.3-5. Generate questions about individuals and groups who have shaped significant historical changes and continuities.

NCSS.D2.His.4.3-5. Explain why individuals and groups during the same historical period differed in their perspectives.

NCSS.D2. His.5.3-5. Explain connections among historical contexts and people’s perspectives at the time.

NCSS.D2.His.6.3-5. Describe how people’s perspectives shaped the historical sources they created.

NCSS.D3.1.9-12. Gather relevant information from multiple sources representing a wide range of views while using the origin, authority, structure, context, and corroborative value of the sources to guide the selection.

Review the lesson plan. Locate and bookmark suggested materials and links from EDSITEment-reviewed websites used in this lesson. Download and print out selected documents and duplicate copies as necessary for student viewing. Alternatively, excerpted versions of these documents are available as part of the Text Document for each activity. Download the two Text Documents, Activity Worksheet 1 and Activity Worksheet 2 , for this lesson, available here as PDFs. These files contain excerpted versions of the documents used in the activities, as well as questions for students to answer. Print out and make an appropriate number of copies of the handouts you plan to use in class.

Note to teachers on prioritizing and modifying activities:  This lesson, because of the importance and complexity of the subject matter, involves activities that might require more time than is normally allotted for this topic. If your available time is limited to one day, it is recommended that teachers skip to Activity Two, which focuses on the specific arguments of Anti-federalists against creating an extended or consolidated republic, namely, the danger of tyranny and the inability to adequately represent the diverse interests of such a large nation. Teachers also have the discretion of modifying the assignments and materials to be covered in class to fit their allotted schedules. Teachers may also have the entire class engage in Activity One, and then assign the second activity to three smaller groups, which would then prepare a class presentation teaching the main points of the materials and activities to the rest of the class.

Because this lesson uses primary documents that include language that students might find difficult to understand or translate into modern terms, teachers may find it useful to create a vocabulary chart for the room, or a chart listing the main points of the Anti-federalist arguments. Students could refer to these charts before beginning the reading assignments.

Analyzing primary sources:  If students need practice in analyzing primary source documents, excellent resource materials are available at  this page  from the  Library of Congress  and  this page  from the  National Archives .

Activity 1. The "consolidated republic" over a vast extent of territory

Preparing for the activity:.

Print copies (or provide links) for students of the documents and questions assigned for homework and class discussion (listed below, included in the Text Document for Activity One).

This activity is designed to introduce students to the Anti-federalists’ views on extending the republic, as this, in their view, would involve doing away with the sovereignty of the thirteen separate and independent states and “melting them down” into one national republic. Students will also see that the initial arguments of Anti-federalists against the extended republic included the following: 1. A vast republic under a consolidated central government would prove fatal to the liberties of the people; and 2. History (and the authority of Baron de Montesquieu) had shown that no large republic in the past had survived without succumbing to either disintegration or tyranny.

On the day before the activity:

After viewing the above video on Alexander Hamilton , have all students read the documents for Activity One and assign the corresponding worksheet (available on pages 4-5 of the Text Document for Activity One). These documents are available in their entirety at the EDSITEment-reviewed Online Library of Liberty and Teaching American History , and in excerpted form on pages 1-3 of the Text Document for Activity One:

• The Federal Farmer (Richard Henry Lee) No. 1 , October 8, 1787
• Brutus No. 1 , October 18, 1787

On the day of the activity:

Divide the class into smaller groups, and allow 10-15 minutes for students to discuss and compare answers, updating their worksheets as they do.

With the remainder of class time, the teacher should initiate and lead class discussion over the ideas in the documents. The teacher can broaden the scope of the discussion by raising the following questions:

• How does the Federal Farmer’s distinctions between the possible “different forms of free government” show that the central question is whether the people of the United States should be firmly united in one nation, or loosely united as citizens of thirteen separate and independent states?
• Why does the Federal Farmer favor only a “partial consolidation” into one republic under a national government?
• Why does the Federal Farmer oppose the “partial consolidation” that will result from the proposed Constitution?
• Do the Federal Farmer and Brutus give the same reasons for rejecting an extended republic?
• Why does Brutus believe an extended republic would be fatal to liberty?

Activity 2. Dangers of the extended republic

Time required for activity: One homework assignment and one class instructional period

Print copies (or provide links) for students of the documents and questions assigned for homework and in-class analysis (listed below, included in the Text Document for Activity Two).

The purpose of the activity is to provide students with an understanding of the core arguments of Anti-federalists against creating a large republic under a consolidated central government. Students will better understand why Anti-federalists believed that a large republic would eventually result in either anarchy or tyranny, and how proper representation and the administration of justice would be rendered ineffective in a large extended republic.

For homework, have all students read the documents for Activity Two Reading Set A and assign the corresponding worksheet (available on page 4 of the Text Document for Activity Two). These documents are available in their entirety at the EDSITEment-reviewed Teaching American History , and in excerpted form on pages 1-3 of the Text Document for Activity Two :

Reading Set A: Fear of despotism or anarchy under a consolidated government

• Centinel No. 1 , October 5, 1787
• Brutus No. 4 , November 29, 1787

Discuss the homework assignment before going on to Reading Sets B and C.

Divide the class into two groups and assign each group Reading Set B or Reading Set C, as well as the corresponding worksheets (available on pages 7 and 9 of the Text Document for Activity Two). These documents are available in their entirety at the EDSITEment-reviewed Online Library of Liberty and Teaching American History , and in excerpted form on pages 5-6 and 8 of the Text Document for Activity Two:

Reading Set B: Disadvantages of the “remote states”

• The Federal Farmer (Richard Henry Lee) No. 2 , October 9, 1787

Reading Set C: Representation and the diversity of interests

Allow each group approximately 10-15 minutes to complete the worksheet for their assigned reading set.

Reshuffle the groups, and make sure every student has the readings and worksheets for both Reading Sets (B and C). Allow approximately 10-15 minutes for students to complete both worksheets.

With the remaining class time, each group should select one student to make a brief presentation to the class on the arguments against the extended republic in the readings.

The lesson can be extended by having each student write a short paper (1-2 pages) summarizing the Anti-federalist arguments against the extended republic.

After completing this lesson, students should be able to construct their response(s) to the following questions using multimodal tools:

• What did the Anti-federalists mean by a “consolidated republic”?
• Why does the Federal Farmer reject the “partial consolidation” that will result from the proposed constitution?
• Why did Centinel and Brutus believe that an extended republic would result in either rebellion or tyranny?
• Why does Brutus believe that representation will not work properly in an extended republic?
• According to Brutus, what problems would be caused by the diversity of interests among states and citizens in an extended republic?

Students should also be able to deliberate the themes addressed in this lesson, and write a longer (2-3 pages) essay answering the following question: Living in America 220 years after their objections were first raised, were the Anti-federalists’ fears about a consolidated government justified?

Alternative methods of assessment:

• Divide the class into small groups, and have each one develop a thesis statement that encompasses all the various elements of this lesson. They should be given roughly 15 minutes to do this. Once they have done so, each group should write its thesis statement on the board, and as a class discuss which is the best, and why. The entire class could then be given a homework assignment to write an essay that defends the statement.
• Allow students to prepare a podcast (or other recording) of a speech that addresses the questions above.

Students should be able to identify and summarize the views of the following Anti-federalists regarding the extended or consolidated republic:

• The Federal Farmer

Students should also be able to identify and explain the significance of the following concepts:

• Anti-federalist
• Extended republic
• Multiplicity of interests
• Adequate representation
• Administration of justice
• Consolidated government

Teachers can extend this lesson by engaging in the following supplemental activities:

• Have students create a PowerPoint presentation explaining the arguments that Anti-federalists made against the extended or consolidated republic.
• Have students choose two Anti-federalists discussed in this lesson with different arguments against the extended or consolidated republic, and have them write a summary report on the difference between them, as well as their reasons for holding their views.
• Have students use the individuals and concepts in “Assessment” to prepare flash cards (cardstock or note cards will work). The front of the card should have the name of the individual or the concept. The back of the card should have a description of the individual and his beliefs or an explanation of the concept. When completed, place students in pairs and allow time to practice with the flashcards in preparation for a quiz or test using the assessment questions.
• Have students write a paper in which they place themselves in the shoes of Brutus and explain how they would have reacted to the creation of extended republic. Students could also write as Brutus and explain their understanding of proper representation, the importance of protecting liberty, and the meaning of self-government.

Materials & Media

The federalist and anti-federalist debates: worksheet 1, the federalist and anti-federalist debates: worksheet 2, related on edsitement, lesson 2: the federalist defense of diversity and "extending the sphere", lesson 3: federalists and democratic-republicans: the platforms they never had, lesson 3: james madison: raising an army: balancing the power of the states and the federal government, the constitutional convention of 1787.