Federalists
v.
Anti-Federalists
On Whether
We Needed a
Bill of Rights
Bill of Rights Institute
August 06, 2007
Artemus Ward
Department of Political Science
Northern Illinois University
The Debate Over the U.S. Constitution



During the period of debate over the ratification of the
Constitution, numerous independent local speeches and
articles were published in newspapers all across the
country.
The articles in favor of the Constitution were written
under the pseudonym “Publius.” The authors were
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. They
were not only drafted as propaganda for ratification but
also to influence the interpretation of the Constitution,
which as a compromise document, had many provisions
which could be interpreted in different ways. The essays
were collected by publishers right from the beginning and
published together in various forms. As such, they
became an important tool for judges and other political
actors in interpreting the Constitution.
Initially, many of the articles in opposition to the
Constitution were written under pseudonyms, such as
“Cato,” “Brutus,” “Centinel,” and “Federal Farmer”—
actually George Clinton, Robert Yates, Samuel Bryan,
Melancton Smith, and Richard Henry Lee among others.
Eventually, famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick
Henry came out publicly against the Constitution. Unlike
the authors of the Federalist Papers who worked together,
the Anti-Federalist papers were not a coordinated effort.
Scholars later published the best and most influential of
these articles and speeches into a collection which came
to be known as the Anti-Federalist Papers.
Who Were the Federalists?
Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804) was the
primary intellectual force for nationalism
throughout the founding period, was
Washington’s most trusted advisor, and the
principle architect of the nation’s economic
policy as Secretary of the Treasury.
 James Madison (I) (1751-1836) was
aligned with Hamilton and the Federalists
early on and was the principle architect of
the Constitution. As a member of the
House of Representatives, he drafted the
Bill of Rights and introduced it in the first
Congress.
 Both Hamilton and Madison wrote most of
the Federalist papers. John Jay only wrote
a few as he was ill and unable to
participate more fully.

The Federalists’ Argument
In Federalist No. 84, Hamilton argued: It has been several times truly remarked,
that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their
subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights
not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons,
sword in hand, from king John...It is evident, therefore, that according to their
primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly
founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate
representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing,
and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations.
"We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the
United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than
volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our
state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics
than in a constitution of government....
 I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in
which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed
constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various
exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would
afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare
that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance,
should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no
power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that
such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would
furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

Who Were the Anti-Federalists?
George Mason (1725-1792)
wrote the Virginia Declaration of
Rights, detailing specific rights
of citizens, which became the
model for the Declaration of
Independence and the first ten
Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.
 Patrick Henry (1736-1799)
was a prominent figure in the
Revolution, known for his "Give
me liberty or give me death"
speech, Governor of Virginian
and a radical rights advocate.

The Anti-Federalist Argument

At the Virginia Ratification Convention, Patrick Henry spoke: If
you give up these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit
the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw —
government that has abandoned all its powers — the powers of
direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of
them to Congress, without a bill of rights — without check,
limitation, or control. And still you have checks and guards; still
you keep barriers — pointed where? Pointed against your
weakened, prostrated, enervated state government! You have a
bill of rights to defend you against the state government, which is
bereaved of all power, and yet you have none against Congress,
though in full and exclusive possession of all power! You arm
yourselves against the weak and defenseless, and expose
yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a
conduct of unexampled absurdity? What barriers have you to
oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that
government you have nothing to oppose. All your defense is
given up. This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of
every gentleman.
Article 7: 10 of 13 States
Needed for Ratification
Compromise:
Ratification and a Bill of Rights








Overall, the Federalists were more organized in their efforts and ultimately
succeeded – but not before compromising with the Anti-Federalists on the issue
of a Bill of Rights.
Five states ratified the Constitution quickly and relatively easily: Delaware (300), Pennsylvania (46-23), New Jersey (38-0), Georgia (26-0), and Connecticut
(128-40).
Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia remained and would be crucial in terms
of population stature for the new government to succeed.
Debates in Massachusetts were very heated, with impassioned speeches from
those on both sides of the issue. Massachusetts was finally won, 187-168, but
only after assurances to opponents that the Constitution could have a bill of
rights added to it.
Subsequently, Maryland (63-11) and South Carolina (149-73) agreed and New
Hampshire (57-47) cast the deciding vote to reach the required nine states.
The votes in Virginia (89-79) and New York (30-27) were hard-won, and close.
Confidence was now high that the new government would succeed.
Making good on their promise, a number of amendments were passed by
Congress, allying the fears of the holdout states.
North Carolina (194-77) and finally Rhode Island (34-32) relented and ratified
well over a year after the Constitution took effect.
Following the passage of the Constitution
and what became known as the Bill of
Rights, the divisions between the
Federalists and Anti-Federalists coalesced
around the issue of federalism—
specifically the aggressive fiscal policies of
Federalist Alexander Hamilton.
 Federalists favored broad construction of
the Constitution and strong national
powers. George Washington, Alexander
Hamilton, John Adams, and John Marshall
were proponents of this general
philosophy.
 Anti-Federalists favored strict-construction
of the Constitution and advocated popular
(State’s) rights against what they saw as
aristocratic, centralizing tendencies of
their opponents. Thomas Jefferson’s
Democratic-Republican Party formed
around these beliefs and included James
Madison (II), James Monroe who both
succeeded Jefferson as President during
“The Virginia Dynasty” (1801-25).
 In one form or another, these two
competing philosophies have dominated
American politics throughout its 200-year
history from the Civil War to regulating
the economy during the New Deal to
current debates over abortion.

The
Two-Party
System
Further Reading
The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers have
been collected in numerous forms including
cheap paperback versions and now on-line for
free.
 Some Secondary Sources:

– Amar, Akhil Reed. 2005. America's Constitution: A
Biography. New York: Random House.
– Chernow, Ron. 2004. Alexander Hamilton. New York:
Penguin Books.
– Storing, Herbert J. 1981. What the Anti-Federalists
Were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of
the Constitution. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.