The Anti-Federalists and the Federalists
A Brief Comparison
Issue
Anti-federalists
Federalists
Articles of
Confederation
The Articles of Confederation were a good plan that needed revision.
The Articles of Confederation were weak and ineffective. A stronger
central government was needed.
Legitimacy of the
Convention and
the Proposed
Constitution
Believed that the Constitutional Convention went beyond its powers
when it wrote the Constitution; the Commissioners were only to
amend the Articles of Confederation.
Believed that they had the right to propose a new document because
they were appointed to the Convention by legitimate means.
Central
Government




Amending the
Constitution
Opposed a strong central government.
Opposed a strong standing army.
A strong central government threatened the rights of the common
people.
 Constitution/strong central government would suppress the liberty
of the masses.
Believed that process of amending the Constitution was too easy;
wanted the unanimous consent of all states in order to pass an
amendment.
Bill of Rights or
Declaration of
Rights
Argued that the proposed Constitution lacked a declaration of rights,
or any means to defend individual liberties. Demanded that a bill of
rights be included.
Establishment of
a National Capital
Did not like the idea of a new permanent federal capital. Argued that
the enemies of the people would shelter themselves in a powerful
citadel against the people’s wrath.
Nature of the
Union: Federal
vs. State
Insisted that the general government outlined in the proposed
Constitution would swallow up the states, reducing them to
administrative districts, and thus destroying the people’s liberties and
right to self-government.
The national government needed to be stronger in order to
function properly. Believed this was especially important with
regard to foreign policy and commerce.
 Strong national government was needed to control uncooperative
states.
 “Mobocracy” threatened the security of life and property.
Believed that the amendment process under the Articles of
Confederation was too difficult because it was impossible for all of the
states to agree on a subject. Felt the protections requiring more than
a simple majority were sufficient.
Believed that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the
Constitution gave the federal government no power to interfere with
individual rights. There was no need to protect the individual from this
government, as it was a government born of the fight for freedom.
The Federalists were not unified on this issue. Some Federalists,
such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, believed that a bill of
rights should be included.
Believed that there needed to be a central location for the business of
the country. The new nation required the stability and permanence of
a single capital. An impressive capital city would humble foreign
heads of state.
Insisted that the states were more likely to infringe on the just powers
of the central government than the reverse.
Issue
Anti-federalists
Federalists
A strong federal government was a threat to the rights of the common
people and that a Congress that had power over the states was a
threat to both state and individual rights. The Elastic Clause and the
Supremacy Clause are of particular concern. The powers of
legislation entrusted to Congress were far too sweeping and
dangerous.
Argued in favor of unanimous consent from all 13 colonies. Did not
approve of the 2/3 ratification plan.
Believed that the powers accorded to Congress were both
circumscribed enough to avoid infringing on the rights of the people or
the legitimate powers of the states, yet extensive enough to safeguard
the general good and vindicate American interests, especially due to
the Elastic Clause and the Supremacy Clause.
Religious Tests
Denounced the Constitution’s ban on religious tests for voting or
holding office. Claimed it opened the door to a non-Christian
becoming President or holding another major national office.
Believed that this ban reflected the very philosophical foundations of
the United States.
Representation in
Congress
Maintained that the scheme of representation in Congress was far too
inadequate to take account of the extent and diversity of the American
people and their interests. They noted that this plan for representation
would limit service in the House or the Senate to only the powerful
and wealthy men and would exclude most other men.
Opposed omitting any reference to God.
Insisted that the scheme of representation was designed to elevate
men of refined and enlarged views who could take into account the
interests of the entire nation.
Believed that the federal court system was unnecessary and
expensive. Expressed concern that the federal court system would
use all available legal means to infringe on the jurisdiction, caseload
and legal business of the state court systems. A federal court had the
potential to become tyrannical.
Distrusted a one-man chief executive because it resembled a
monarchy, especially because there were no term limits set for the
office. (Term limits were est. by the 22nd Amendment which was
ratified in 1951.) Powers of the president could remain unchecked
and it was too difficult to impeach the president. It was unacceptable
that the president had the power to suspend habeas corpus.
Argued that a uniform and independent federal court system was the
foundation of liberty and that the federal courts would defend the
Constitution against unconstitutional excesses of the Legislative and
Judicial branches.
Powers of
Congress
Ratification of the
Constitution
Separation of
Church and State
The Judiciary
The Presidency
In favor of the 2/3 ratification plan. Were committed to the ratification
of the constitution under almost any means.
More sympathetic to a separation of church and state.
Insisted that because the president exercised his powers alone he
would be more accountable than a group of men. The electoral
college would ensure that the best man was chosen for the job.
(Many were confident that G. Washington would be selected as the
first president and that he would set the standard for future
presidents).
Resources include:
Baily, T. and Kennedy, D. The American Pageant. Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company, 1987.
Bernstein, R.B. and Lyons, D. “The Argument Over the Constitution.” The American Revolution: National Discussions of Our Revolutionary Origins. 2004. 16 Nov 2009 <http://revolution.h-net.msu.edu/essays/bernstein.argument.html>
Carnes, M. and Garraty, J. The American Nation. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006.