Federalists
&
Anti-Federalists
THE ROAD TO RATIFICATION:
WHAT WAS ALL THE FUSS ABOUT?
What they agreed on:
 Republicanism
 Representation, consent of governed, delegated power

But who should represent the public?
 Federalism*
 Power divided between states and national government

But how much power for each?
 Separation of Powers
 L, E, J in different hands, but not completely

Total separation? Or checks and balances?
The Purpose of the Federalist Papers:
 To promote ratification
 To show the intentions of
the framers

(they are awesome
historical documents for
that purpose)
Madison: Federalist No. 10
 Factions
 Natural, but controllable by shared institutional power
(branches)
 Liberty is protected by fragmented power in a large republic
 Majority rule would be limited by:
Electoral College
 US Senator elections (changed by 17th Amendment)
 Longer, staggered terms for Senators
 Independent, life term serving judiciary
 Representative democracy

Madison: Federalist No. 51
 Checks and Balances
 “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition”
 “If men were angels, no government would be necessary”
 Each branch can “check” another in several ways





Pres can veto laws
 (E checks L)
Congress can override vetoes
 (L checks E)
Courts can test the constitutionality of law
 (J checks L & E)
Congress can amend the Constitution
 (L checks J)
Pres can appointment justices
 (E checks J)
 And so on: Page 40 in text
So why the conflict?
Federalists
Anti-Federalists
 National government
 Bill of Rights would protect
had checks and balances
which would restrain
power
 Rights were protected
enough
 Strong national
government would not
threaten liberties
 National government
was “sovereign”
people from abusive power
 Small republics are more
responsive
 States would better serve
the people’s interests
 States were “sovereign”
*The conflict was mostly about the scope of power between “nation” and “state”
Hamilton and Smith
 Read your handout
 What was Hamilton’s position on representation?
 What was Smith’s position?
 What arguments do they make to support their
claims?
 Based on the those arguments, what kind of people
do you think were Federalists? Anti-Federalists?
 Which side would you have supported?
 Are these issues still debated today?
Hamilton: Federalist
Smith: Anti-Federalist
 Happy with the
 Not happy with how
representation outline
in the Constitution
 Representative
Democracy
 Elites; slight distrust of
the common man
representation would
work
 Direct Democracy
 Believed in the decency
of the common man
Hamilton: Federalist No. 28
“IF THE PEOPLE’S RIGHTS ARE INVADED BY
EITHER, THEY CAN MAKE USE OF THE
OTHER AS THE INSTRUMENT OF REDRESS”
Summary:
THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS LOST THE BATTLE,
BUT WON THE WAR. THE FIRST 10
AMENDMENTS WERE ADDED BY 1791.
THE B-O-R ADDRESSED MANY OF THE
ANTI-FEDERALISTS’ CONCERNS
THE B-O-R LIMITS MAJORITY RULE
Which government (state or federal)?
Which government would serve the interests of people
better when considering:
 National healthcare?
 Same sex marriage?
 Abortion?
 Immigration?
 Off shore drilling?