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

U.S. Constitution.net

Constitutional topic: the federalists and anti-federalists – the u.s. constitution online – usconstitution.net, constitutional topic: the federalists and anti-federalists.

The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages . This Topic Page concerns the Federalists versus the Anti-Federalists and the struggle for ratification. Generally speaking, the federalists were in favor of ratification of the Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists were opposed. Note the the Anti-Federalists are often referred to as just Antifederalists (without the hyphen). Either form is generally acceptable.

Other pages of interest would include: Ratification Timeline , Ratification Documents , Ratification Dates and Votes .

After the Constitutional Convention , the fight for the Constitution had just begun. According to Article 7 , conventions in nine states had to ratify the Constitution before it would become effective. Some states were highly in favor of the new Constitution, and within three months, three states, Delaware (with a vote of 30-0), Pennsylvania (46-23), and New Jersey (38-0), had ratified it. Georgia (26-0) and Connecticut (128-40) quickly followed in January, 1788 (for the exact dates of ratification, see The Timeline ).

More than half-way there in four months, one might think that the battle was nearly won. But the problem was not with the states that ratified quickly, but with the key states in which ratification was not as certain. Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia were key states, both in terms of population and stature. 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.

After Massachusetts, the remaining states required for ratification did so within a few months, with Maryland (63-11) and South Carolina (149-73) falling in line, and New Hampshire (57-47) casting the deciding vote to reach the required nine states. New York and Virginia still remained, however, and many doubted that the new Constitution could survive without these states.

New York and Virginia

Early in the ratification process, the proponents of the Constitution took the name “Federalists.”

Though those who opposed the Constitution actually wanted a more purely federal system (as the Articles provided), they were more or less forced into taking the name “Anti-Federalists.” These men had many reasons to oppose the Constitution. They did not feel that a republican form of government could work on a national scale. They also did not feel that the rights of the individual were properly or sufficiently protected by the new Constitution. They saw themselves as the true heirs of the spirit of the Revolution. Some very notable persons in United States history counted themselves Anti-Federalists, like Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, George Mason, George Clinton, and Luther Martin.

There were some true philosophical differences between the two camps. In many instances, though, there was also a lot of personal animosity. For example, in New York, George Clinton was a political opponent of John Jay, a prominent Federalist, and also disliked Alexander Hamilton. And in Virginia, Patrick Henry was a political rival of James Madison.

In addition, many letters were written to newspapers under various pseudonyms, like “The Federal Farmer,” “Cato,” “Brutus,” and “Cincinnatus.” These letters and several speeches are now known as “The Anti-Federalist Papers.”

In response to the speeches and letters of the Anti-Federalists, the Federalists gave their own speeches and wrote their own letters. John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison coordinated their efforts and wrote a series of 85 letters under the name “Publius.” These letters both explained the new Constitution and answered the charges of the Anti-Federalists. The letters were collected into a volume called “The Federalist,” or “The Federalist Papers.” Though the influence of The Federalist at the time is questionable, the letters are noted today as classics in political theory. Perhaps of far greater importance were the Federalist stances of George Washington and Ben Franklin, very prominent men both in their day and today. Their opinions carried great weight.

The votes in Virginia and New York were hard-won, and close. Virginia voted 89-79, and New York , a month later, voted 30-27 to ratify. With all the major states now having ratified, confidence was high that the United States under the Constitution would be a success, or, at least, have a fighting chance. The new Congress met, and George Washington became the first President. As suggested by many of the ratifying conventions, one of the first tasks tackled was the writing of a Bill of Rights to be attached to the Constitution. The Bill, Amendments 1-10, eased the minds of many hold-outs. Shortly thereafter, North Carolina ratified (194-77), and lone hold-out, Rhode Island , finally relented and ratified on a close 34-32 vote.

The Federalists were successful in their effort to get the Constitution ratified by all 13 states. The Federalists later established a party known as the Federalist Party. The party backed the views of Hamilton and was a strong force in the early United States. The party, however, was short-lived, dead by 1824.

The Anti-Federalists generally gravitated toward the views of Thomas Jefferson, coalescing into the Republican Party, later known as the Democratic Republicans, the precursor to today’s Democratic Party.

The Arguments

One of the most succinct enumeration of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists against the Constitution is found in a letter commonly known as Anti-Federalist number 44. The author anonymously signed the letter “Deliberator.” The author listed several points raised by a Federalist in another letter published anonymously in the Pennsylvania Packet under the name Freeman. Most of the points made by Deliberator have actually proven true over time. For example, Freeman argued that the federal government could not train the militia — our modern National Guard, the descendant of their militia, is trained by the federal government. Freeman also noted that the federal government would not be permitted to inspect “the produce of the country”, but our modern system of inspection of everything from food to drugs to cars has shown Freeman to be wrong and Deliberator to be right.

The bulk of Deliberator’s letter is not a refutation of Freeman’s letter, though, but a list of the features of the Constitution that Deliberator, and many other Anti-Federalists, objected to. These, along with commentary, are shown below.

· Congress may, even in time of peace, raise an army of 100,000 men, whom they may canton through the several states, and billet out on the inhabitants, in order to serve as necessary instruments in executing their decrees.

Today’s modern military would probably alarm even the most strident Federalist, but our military evolved with time and most Americans cannot imagine the world without a strong national military. The Anti-Federalist concern about billeting, however, is addressed in the 3rd Amendment .

· Upon the inhabitants of any state proving refractory to the will of Congress, or upon any other pretense whatsoever, Congress may can out even all the militia of as many states as they think proper, and keep them in actual service, without pay, as long as they please, subject to the utmost rigor of military discipline, corporal punishment, and death itself not excepted.

History has shown some of this concern to be true — for example, when the governor of Arkansas refused to implement a Supreme Court decision regarding school desegregation, President Dwight Eisenhower sent in federal troops and federalized the Arkansas National Guard to enforce the ruling. The soldiers, however, were not unpaid, though they were subject to military discipline.

· Congress may levy and collect a capitation or poll tax, to what amount they shall think proper; of which the poorest taxable in the state must pay as much as the richest.

This is true — but the Congress has never imposed a direct (capitation) tax, and with the ratification of the 16th Amendment , there seems to be little need to be concerned with this point.

· Congress may, under the sanction of that clause in the constitution which empowers them to regulate commerce , authorize the importation of slaves, even into those states where this iniquitous trade is or may be prohibited by their laws or constitutions.

The Congress banned the importation of slaves as soon as it was constitutionally able to do so, in 1808. No state was required to allow slaves contrary to their own laws or constitutions, but the outcome of the Dred Scott case illustrates that this concern was real.

· Congress may, under the sanction of that clause which empowers them to lay and collect duties (as distinct from imposts and excises) impose so heavy a stamp duty on newspapers and other periodical publications, as shall effectually prevent all necessary information to the people through these useful channels of intelligence.

This was a real concern, especially considering the Stamp Act that the British has imposed on the colonies. However, no such tax was ever implemented and with the ratification of the 1st Amendment , such a tax probably would have been found unconstitutional by the courts.

· Congress may, by imposing a duty on foreigners coming into the country, check the progress of its population. And after a few years they may prohibit altogether, not only the emigration of foreigners into our country, but also that of our own citizens to any other country.

Congress could effectively close the borders to immigration, and as a matter of policy has strictly regulated the immigration of people from certain countries for centuries — limitations that continue today. It is unlikely that a ban on emigration would be upheld by the courts, however, given the unenumerated right to travel.

· Congress may withhold, as long as they think proper, all information respecting their proceedings from the people.

The Constitution requires that the Congress keep journals and publish them “from time to time.” The definition of “time to time” might have allowed the publication of journals to be delayed for a long time, but today, with the advent of computerized journals and the Internet, “time to time” means no more than 24 hours.

· Congress may order the elections for members of their own body, in the several states, to be held at what times, in what places, and in what manner they shall think proper. Thus, in Pennsylvania, they may order the elections to be held in the middle of winter, at the city of Philadelphia; by which means the inhabitants of nine-tenths of the state will be effectually (tho’ constitutionally) deprived of the exercise of their right of suffrage.

Congress does have the power to alter state plans for time, place, and manner of election, but the Congress does not micro-manage elections in this way, though it has set a national date for elections. It is still possible that the Congress could flex its muscle in this way, though it seems unlikely.

· Congress may, in their courts of judicature, abolish trial by jury in civil cases altogether; and even in criminal cases, trial by a jury of the vicinage is not secured by the constitution. A crime committed at Fort Pitt may be tried by a jury of the citizens of Philadelphia.

These concerns were addressed by the 6th and 7th Amendments.

· Congress may, if they shall think it for the “general welfare,” establish an uniformity in religion throughout the United States. Such establishments have been thought necessary, and have accordingly taken place in almost all the other countries in the world, and will no doubt be thought equally necessary in this.

This concern was addressed by the 1st Amendment .

· Though I believe it is not generally so understood, yet certain it is, that Congress may emit paper money, and even make it a legal tender throughout the United States; and, what is still worse, may, after it shall have depreciated in the hands of the people, call it in by taxes, at any rate of depreciation (compared with gold and silver) which they may think proper. For though no state can emit bills of credit, or pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, yet the Congress themselves are under no constitutional restraints on these points.

The federal government does, indeed, print paper money. This fiat currency, money which has no intrinsic value in and of itself, is a concern of many even today. However, relying on a gold or silver standard was not a viable economic solution either. While it cannot be said that we have evolved the best possible system of economics and monetary policy, the system in place today does lead to a stable currency and economy.

· The number of representatives which shall compose the principal branch of Congress is so small as to occasion general complaint. Congress, however, have no power to increase the number of representatives, but may reduce it even to one fifth part of the present arrangement.

The concern here is that the number of representatives in the House could not exceed one for every thirty thousand — that there could be one for every hundred thousand, but not one for every ten or twenty thousand. Today, this seems almost quaint, since the rate of representation is now about one for every 650,000. The number of representatives is fixed at 435, but that number can be revised by Congress. Most Americans, however, would find little use for more members of Congress. At the rate of one for every thirty thousand, today we would have over nine thousand representatives in the House.

· On the other hand, no state can call forth its militia even to suppress any insurrection or domestic violence which may take place among its own citizens. This power is, by the constitution, vested in Congress.

The power of a state to quell insurrection within its own borders is not precluded by the Constitution. This power is a concurrent one, one which both the state and federal governments can exercise.

· No state can compel one of its own citizens to pay a debt due to a citizen of a neighboring state. Thus a Jersey-man will be unable to recover the price of a turkey sold in the Philadelphia market, if the purchaser shall be inclined to dispute, without commencing an action in one of the federal courts.

This is true — such an interstate case must be brought and heard in a federal court. By the framers, however, this was seen as a protection, and not a violation of a right. The thought was that the New Jersey courts would be inherently biased against the Pennsylvania purchaser. This has become a bigger issue in the Internet age, as parties in a dispute could be widely separated geographically. A tactic of some large corporations is to sue small companies or individuals in courts they are no capable of attending without great expense, the point being to extract a settlement prior to trial. The ability to sue in state courts across state lines would not solve this problem, however.

· No state can encourage its own manufactures either by prohibiting or even laying a duty on the importation of foreign articles.

This is true — but the reason was an eminently practical one. Without a uniform system for tariff and duty, importers would have had to contend with thirteen different sets of regulations, which is the way things worked under the Articles of Confederation . This was almost universally seen as one of the great defects of the Articles.

· No state can give relief to insolvent debtors, however distressing their situation may be, since Congress will have the exclusive right of establishing uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; and the particular states are expressly prohibited from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts.

This was true then and is still true, though states could, if they wished, pass laws that provided funds for debtors to help pay back debt — not that they likely would, but they could. The primacy of contracts and their inviolability by the government, state or federal, is a key feature of the Constitution. Its historical effect on the economy is certainly debatable, but the assurance of both parties to a contract that the government cannot relieve either of its terms has a stabilizing effect, not the opposite.

• 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.

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

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Course: US history   >   Unit 3

• The Articles of Confederation
• What was the Articles of Confederation?
• Shays's Rebellion
• The Constitutional Convention
• The US Constitution

The Federalist Papers

• The Bill of Rights
• Social consequences of revolutionary ideals
• The presidency of George Washington
• Why was George Washington the first president?
• The presidency of John Adams
• Regional attitudes about slavery, 1754-1800
• Continuity and change in American society, 1754-1800
• Creating a nation
• The Federalist Papers was a collection of essays written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton in 1788.
• The essays urged the ratification of the United States Constitution, which had been debated and drafted at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.
• The Federalist Papers is considered one of the most significant American contributions to the field of political philosophy and theory and is still widely considered to be the most authoritative source for determining the original intent of the framers of the US Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation and Constitutional Convention

• In Federalist No. 10 , Madison reflects on how to prevent rule by majority faction and advocates the expansion of the United States into a large, commercial republic.
• In Federalist No. 39 and Federalist 51 , Madison seeks to “lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty,” emphasizing the need for checks and balances through the separation of powers into three branches of the federal government and the division of powers between the federal government and the states. 4 ‍  
• In Federalist No. 84 , Hamilton advances the case against the Bill of Rights, expressing the fear that explicitly enumerated rights could too easily be construed as comprising the only rights to which American citizens were entitled.

What do you think?

• For more on Shays’s Rebellion, see Leonard L. Richards, Shays’s Rebellion: The American Revolution’s Final Battle (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002).
• Bernard Bailyn, ed. The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-Federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification; Part One, September 1787 – February 1788 (New York: Penguin Books, 1993).
• See Federalist No. 1 .
• See Federalist No. 51 .
• For more, see Michael Meyerson, Liberty’s Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote the Federalist Papers, Defined the Constitution, and Made Democracy Safe for the World (New York: Basic Books, 2008).

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

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, the anti-federalists and their important role during the ratification fight.

September 27, 2017 | by Ugonna Eze

On this day in 1787, the debate over the newly written Constitution began in the press after an anonymous writer in the New York Journal warned citizens that the document was not all that it seemed.

Most Americans know of the Federalist Papers, the collection of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Madison, in defense of the U.S. Constitution. Fewer know of the Anti-Federalist Papers authored by Cato and other incognito writers, their significance to American political history, or their responsibility for producing the Bill of Rights.

When the Constitution was drafted in the summer of 1787, its ratification was far from certain; it still needed to be ratified by at least nine of the 13 state legislatures. The failure of the Articles of Confederation made it clear that America needed a new form of government. Yet there was worry that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government. The original draft of the Constitution did not have a Bill of Rights, declared all state laws subservient to federal ones, and created a king-like office in the presidency. At the Philadelphia Convention and in the Federalist Papers, James Madison argued against having a Bill of Rights, fearing that they would limit the people’s rights.

Opposition to the Constitution after the Philadelphia Convention began with Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and George Mason, the “Three Dissenters” who refused to sign the document. It then grew to include Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Richard Henry Lee, heroes of the Revolutionary War who objected to the Constitution’s consolidation of power. In time, the various opponents to the new Constitution came to be known as the Anti-Federalists. Their collected speeches, essays, and pamphlets later became known as the “Anti-Federalist Papers.”

While each of the Anti-Federalists had their own view for what a new constitution for the United States should look like, they generally agreed on a few things. First, they believed that the new Constitution consolidated too much power in the hands of Congress, at the expense of states. Second, they believed that the unitary president eerily resembled a monarch and that that resemblance would eventually produce courts of intrigue in the nation’s capital. Third, they believed that the liberties of the people were best protected when power resided in state governments, as opposed to a federal one. Lastly, they believed that without a Bill of Rights, the federal government would become tyrannous.

These arguments created a powerful current against adopting the Constitution in each of the states. In state legislatures across the country, opponents of the Constitution railed against the extensive powers it granted the federal government and its detraction from the republican governments of antiquity. In Virginia, Patrick Henry, author of the famous “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech, called the proposed constitution, “A revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain.” In the Essays of Brutus, an anonymous author worried that without any limitations, the proposed Constitution would make “the state governments… dependent on the will of the general government for their existence.”

The Anti-Federalists mobilized against the Constitution in state legislatures across the country.

Anti-Federalists in Massachusetts, Virginia and New York, three crucial states, made ratification of the Constitution contingent on a Bill of Rights. In Massachusetts, arguments between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists erupted in a physical brawl between Elbridge Gerry and Francis Dana. Sensing that Anti-Federalist sentiment would sink ratification efforts, James Madison reluctantly agreed to draft a list of rights that the new federal government could not encroach.

The Bill of Rights is a list of 10 constitutional amendments that secure the basic rights and privileges of American citizens. They were fashioned after the English Bill of Rights and George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights. They include the right to free speech, the right to a speedy trial, the right to due process under the law, and protections against cruel and unusual punishments. To accommodate Anti-Federalist concerns of excessive federal power, the Bill of Rights also reserves any power that is not given to the federal government to the states and to the people.

Since its adoption, the Bill of Rights has become the most important part of the Constitution for most Americans. In Supreme Court cases, the Amendments are debated more frequently than the Articles. They have been cited to protect the free speech of Civil Rights activists, protect Americans from unlawful government surveillance, and grant citizens Miranda rights during arrest. It is impossible to know what our republic would look like today without the persistence of the Anti-Federalists over two hundred years ago.

Ugonna Eze is a Fellow for Constitutional Studies at the National Constitution Center.

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

The Federalist and Anti-federalist Debates on Diversity and the Extended Republic

Diagram of the US Federal Government and American Union, 1862.

Wikimedia Commons

In September of 1787, the delegates to the Convention in Philadelphia presented their work to the American public for ratification. The proposed Constitution marked a clear departure from the Articles of Confederation, which had essentially established a federal “league of friendship” between thirteen sovereign and largely independent states. Under the newly proposed plan of government, the union between the states would be strengthened under a national government that derived its authority—at least in part—directly from the American people rather than purely from the state legislatures. And under the new Constitution, the people would be represented equally in the House, regardless of the state in which they lived—unlike the Articles of Confederation, according to which the Continental Congress equally represented the states . In other words, the proposed Constitution would make the United States a nation of one people rather than a loose confederation of states.

In this unit, students will examine the arguments of Anti-federalists and Federalists to learn what their compromises would mean for the extended republic that would result from the new Constitution. They will become familiar with some of the greatest thinkers on both sides of the argument and their reasons for opposing or supporting the Constitution. They will learn why Anti-federalists believed that a large nation could not long preserve liberty and self-government. They will also learn why Federalists such as James Madison believed that a large nation was vital to promote justice and the security of rights for all citizens, majority and minority alike. Finally, students will see the seriousness of the question as one that both sides believed would determine the happiness, liberty, and safety of future generations of Americans.

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?

Was James Madison correct when he claimed that a republican government over an extended territory was necessary to both preserve the Union and secure the rights of citizens?

Learning Objectives

Understand what Anti-federalists meant by the terms “extended republic” or “consolidated republic.”

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

Evaluate the nature and purpose of representation and the competing arguments regarding the short and long-term outcomes of these decisions. 

Evaluate the argument that a large republic would result in an abuse of power by those holding elected office. 

Evaluate the merits of a “pure democracy” and a representative republic. 

Construct an argument as to which perspective regarding the size of a government and republic has proved true in the U.S. today.

Curriculum Details

The proposed Constitution, and the change it wrought in the nature of the American Union, spawned one of the greatest political debates of all time. In addition to the state ratifying conventions, the debates also took the form of a public conversation, mostly through newspaper editorials, with Anti-federalists on one side objecting to the Constitution, and Federalists on the other supporting it. Writers from both sides tried to persuade the public that precious liberty and self-government, hard-earned during the late Revolution, were at stake in the question.

Anti-federalists such as the Federal Farmer, Centinel, and Brutus argued that the new Constitution would eventually lead to the dissolution of the state governments, the consolidation of the Union into “one great republic” under an unchecked national government, and as a result the loss of free, self-government. Brutus especially believed that in such an extensive and diverse nation, nothing short of despotism “could bind so great a country under one government.” Federalists such as James Madison (writing as Publius) countered that it was precisely a large nation, in conjunction with a well-constructed system of government, which would help to counter the “mortal disease” of popular governments: the “dangerous vice” of majority faction. In an extended republic, interests would be multiplied, Madison argued, making it difficult for a majority animated by one interest to unite and oppress the minority. If such a faction did form, a frame of government that included “auxiliary precautions” such as separation of powers and legislative checks and balances would help to prevent the “factious spirit” from introducing “instability, injustice, and confusion … into the public councils.”

Review each lesson plan. Locate and bookmark suggested materials and links from EDSITEment-reviewed websites. Download and print out selected documents and duplicate copies as necessary for student viewing.

• Text Document for Lesson 1, Activity 1
• Text Document for Lesson 1, Activity 2
• Text Document for Lesson 2, Activity 1
• Text Document for Lesson 2, Activity 2

These Text Documents contain excerpted versions of the documents used in the activities, as well as questions for students to answer.

Analyzing primary sources — If students need practice in analyzing primary source documents, excellent resource materials are available at  The Learning Page  from the  Library of Congress  and  Educator Resources  from the  National Archives .

Lesson Plans in Curriculum

Lesson 1: anti-federalist arguments against "a complete consolidation".

This lesson focuses on the chief objections of the Anti-federalists, especially The Federal Farmer (Richard Henry Lee), Centinel, and Brutus, regarding the extended republic. Students 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.

Lesson 2: The Federalist Defense of Diversity and "Extending the Sphere"

This lesson involves a detailed analysis of Alexander Hamilton’s and James Madison’s arguments in favor of the extended republic in The Federalist Nos. 9, 10 and 51. Students consider and understand in greater depth the problem of faction in a free republic and the difficulty of establishing a government that has enough power to fulfill its responsibilities, but which will not abuse that power and infringe on liberties of citizens.

Related on EDSITEment

Advanced placement u.s. history lessons, the federalist debates: balancing power between state and federal governments, commemorating constitution day, the constitutional convention of 1787.

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Political Participation — Anti Federalists vs. Federalists

Anti Federalists Vs. Federalists

• Categories: Political Participation

About this sample

Words: 1554 |

Published: Jul 17, 2018

Words: 1554 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

The essay analyzes the ideological and historical conflict between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists in the early years of the United States. This division emerged in the aftermath of the Revolutionary War when the country faced economic challenges due to the war's cost and resulting debt. Anti-Federalists, primarily from rural areas, opposed the development of a strong federal government and instead advocated for power to remain with state and local governments. On the other hand, Federalists, often wealthy individuals from larger urban areas, supported a stronger national government and the ratification of the Constitution as a means to manage post-Revolution debt and tensions effectively.

The essay draws parallels between this historical division and contemporary political divides, such as Democrats vs. Republicans, highlighting how differing socioeconomic groups tended to align with one side or the other. It emphasizes the economic and political context of the time, where the Articles of Confederation proved insufficient in governing the young nation.

The essay also discusses the role of key figures like Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, as well as the debates surrounding the ratification of the Constitution, leading to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. It highlights the Federalists' belief in the necessity of a strong national government while preserving state sovereignty.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 511 words

7 pages / 3058 words

2 pages / 721 words

1 pages / 564 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives. Direct democracy and representative democracy are two forms of democracy [...]

"Strawberry and Chocolate wants to signify how political and social ideas can be changed through compassion and acceptance, and as Shields (2004, p.242) argues, “through a postmodern process of image making”. As we see the [...]

I’d be lying if I said my parents didn’t influence my political ideology. I believe any young man or woman our age would be lying if they said that their parents didn’t have any sort of influence on their political ideologies. [...]

Political socialization is the ‘procedure by which people learn and habitually disguise a political focal point confining their view of how power is masterminded and how their general surroundings is and ought to be composed; [...]

Countries spend millions of dollars both trying to boost and, also to monitor their favorability in the international politics. This essay will compare and contrast political participation and political communication in the [...]

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character give him power. - Abraham Lincoln Politicians crave power. I have always been fascinated by the ways and means that politicians use to attain [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

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. 11 May 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.

Federalist/Anti-Federalist Debate on Congress’s Powers of Taxation DBQ

Use this lesson with

• Students will systematically analyze primary sources by answering targeted sourcing and comprehension questions for each document.
• Students will articulate the main arguments over the power of taxation used in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate by writing a thesis statement that responds to the following prompt: Evaluate the arguments for and against entrusting a national legislature with the power of taxation.

Expand Materials Materials

• Handout A: Federalist/Anti-Federalist Document Packet

Expand More Information More Information

This DBQ builds on skills used in analyzing documents in the Benjamin Franklin: The First American? DBQ in the previous unit by including targeted questions for each document. Six documents are used in this DBQ with the goal of working students up to interpreting seven documents that mimic the AP Exam format in future DBQ lessons. Teachers may choose to use the provided questions as scaffolds for students or remove them, as best suits their teaching situation. The documents may be used in isolation or in combinations as the teacher sees fit.

Expand Warmup Warmup

Instruct students to consider the warm-up questions on the student handout. Students may write down their answers, brainstorm with a partner, or conduct a brief discussion on each question.

1. In creating a budget for yourself, what are your top priorities? (Answers will vary but may include phone, clothes, friends, gas/car, girlfriend/boyfriend, helping family, and so forth).

2. If you were responsible not only for yourself but for running a country, what would your top priorities be for your budget? (Answers will vary but may education, health care, defense/military, energy, transportation, and so forth)

3. How would you convince others that these causes are worth paying for? Answers will vary.

Have students read the introduction paragraph or read aloud with them to set up the DBQ exercise.

Expand Activities Activities

1. Have students work individually or in groups as best suits your teaching situation to read the following documents and answer the comprehension and sourcing questions as they go along.

2. Redirect students to the prompt: Evaluate the arguments for and against entrusting a national legislature with the power of taxation.  Have students work individually to use highlighters to mark evidence in the documents provided, indicating support for the position they choose. Next, have students complete the last step in the packet to construct a thesis statement individually or in groups, as best suits your teaching situation.

Expand Wrap Up Wrap Up

Solicit volunteers to share their thesis and workshop several using the following questions:

• Does the thesis answer the question without simply restating the prompt?
• Does the thesis make sense?
• Is the thesis historically accurate?
• Does the thesis provide clear and cohesive reasoning?
• Is the thesis supported by evidence from the documents?
• Is the thesis supported by evidence on the topic outside of the documents (your own background knowledge of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate and ratification of the Constitution)?

Expand Extensions Extensions

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/fed-antifed/

Related Resources

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.

Advertisement

• Previous Article
• Next Article

An Anti-Federalist Constitution: The Development of Dissent in the Ratification Debate by Michael J. Faber

Todd Estes is a professor of history at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. He is completing a book manuscript on the ratification debate tentatively titled “Campaign for the Constitution .”

• Cite Icon Cite
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Permissions
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Search Site

Todd Estes; An Anti-Federalist Constitution: The Development of Dissent in the Ratification Debate by Michael J. Faber. The New England Quarterly 2024; 97 (1): 104–107. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/tneq_r_01016

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Of all the challenges Anti-Federalists faced during the ratification contest, perhaps the greatest was the absence of an alternative version of a constitution to offer for state convention delegates and newspaper readers to consider. Had there been an alternative, what might it have looked like? Which parts of the broad Anti-Federalist critique would it have emphasized?

Michael J. Faber's important book “is an effort to rehabilitate the Anti-Federalists” and to “identify and explain [their] ideology” (2). Anti-Federalists had a “clear and coherent” position which, over the course of the debate, “coalesced on a fairly consistent theory of government” (x, 2). But Faber believes most scholars of Anti-Federalism have been trapped inside a Charles Beardian social class framework. Faber's corrective is “to examine the development of ideas rather than events, and examine how the events and strategies shaped and changed those ideas” (21).

This book makes two significant contributions. First, where scholars have argued that opponents of the Constitution divided into elite, middling, and plebeian ranks based on socio-economic interests, Faber contends that a better categorization separates the movement into its three primary intellectual concerns: power, rights, and democracy. Each category of Anti-Federalist dissenters had a distinctive ideological position, identified with a region of the nation, and had an emblematic essayist. Rights Anti-Federalists feared violations of individual rights, were prominent in the south, and typified by “Federal Farmer.” Power Anti-Federalists saw the states as the bulwark of security for liberty and worried about consolidation of power at the national level. They were strongest in the northeast and were best represented in the debates by “Brutus.” Finally, Democratic Anti-Federalists sought a more thoroughly popular system of government, were strongest in the west and rural areas, and were given voice by “Centinel.”

But these three strands were neither evenly proportioned nor equally significant. Over time, the dominant arguments on the opposition side blended the Rights and Power dissent. As the Democratic position came to be seen as too radical, the other two converged, forging a bond that screened out the Democratic element. This convergence was far from a perfect fusion. Ultimately, Faber observes, the actual Bill of Rights reflected overwhelmingly the concerns of Rights Anti-Federalists. The first ten amendments did little for Power Anti-Federalists and almost nothing for Democratic critics of the Constitution.

The second major contribution is to present what the Anti-Federalists themselves did not—a full-blown draft of a constitution. Faber's version is a heavily redacted and edited adaptation of the actual Constitution. He concedes that his prospective Anti-Federalist Constitution reflects chiefly the concerns of the Power wing of the dissenters and Brutus in particular. Throughout the book Faber has leaned toward Brutus, noting that his essays were “Perhaps the finest opposition writings to emerge from the debates” (31). Later, in his draft Constitution's treatment of the powers of Congress, he observes that “Brutus summed up quite succinctly the reason so many changes have been made to this section” (369). Similarly, he finds that “Since Brutus offered the best critique of the courts, the changes below lean heavily on his suggestions” (384). Finally, Faber acknowledges that while there could be many such alternative models, the one he put together might plausibly have won wide support and speculates that if Brutus had a document like Faber's to compare to the actual Constitution, then “Brutus would find [Faber's] far more agreeable” since it realized “‘a more perfect union’ on more explicitly federal terms” (396).

Oddly, the book's final chapter undercuts this creation. Faber grants that “With the benefit of hindsight, it seems that the Anti-Federalist conception of government, if strictly adhered to and not adjusted to circumstances, would not have lasted” (397). Chief among its flaws is that its “strongest point . . . that it truly creates a government of enumerated powers, is also its weakest point.” The “fatal flaw” was “that this Constitution established a confederation disguised as a federal government” (398–99). Faber is no doubt correct, but this calls into question the entire exercise.

The book's organization similarly detracts from its argumentation and stated goals. Faber begins with two important chapters that spell out his thesis and interpretation of the Anti-Federalists. He concludes with two chapters that present his version of an Anti-Federalist Constitution and then commentary on how it might have fared. The bulk of the book consists of fifteen chapters, some of which are excellent, that trace a state-by-state history of ratification—exactly what he claimed earlier that he would not attempt. As a result of this uneven allocation of space, Faber's book rushes through its key contributions, failing to develop fully the points that make it unique.

For example, nearly buried yet deserving much greater elaboration, is Faber's critical insight—made in passing—that over time, three distinct positions effectively became two with the merging of Power and Rights Anti-Federalists. Only then, when “proponents of both arguments began to disavow their more radical Democratic brethren, did a clear opposition position begin to emerge, much too late in the debate to have much impact” (350–51). This is an exciting, potentially significant finding that gets brief mention twice—when Luther Martin in the Maryland debate became “the first significant figure” to practice this convergence (199); and again, when his New York chapter off-handedly observed that the “Rights and Power Anti-Federalist positions were not as effectively merged here as in Virginia” (267). For a book focused on the ideas of the Anti-Federalists to treat a major conceptual development so briefly is puzzling and leaves readers wondering how this convergence happened, who besides Luther Martin contributed to it, and how it led to the further marginalization of the Democratic strand.

We also learn early—in what seems a promise that the point will be developed—that the Rights Anti-Federalists “were the most open to compromise. . . As such, it was this branch . . . to which the Federalists turned for support when it became clear that they needed to convince at least some people to change their minds” (44). This, too, is tantalizing stuff, potentially a major contribution to understanding Anti-Federalist thought and the internal dynamics of the ratification contest. But by the end of the book, this discernment remains underdeveloped. Faber charts a path to revealing interpretations grounded in his thorough reading of the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and the secondary literature. By trying to do so much, this project's potential may not be fully realized.

Email alerts

Related articles, related book chapters, affiliations.

• Online ISSN 1937-2213
• Print ISSN 0028-4866

A product of The MIT Press

Mit press direct.

• About MIT Press Direct

Information

• Accessibility
• For Authors
• For Customers
• For Librarians
• Direct to Open
• Open Access
• Media Inquiries
• Rights and Permissions
• For Advertisers
• About the MIT Press
• The MIT Press Reader
• MIT Press Blog
• Seasonal Catalogs
• MIT Press Home
• Give to the MIT Press
• Direct Service Desk
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Statement
• Crossref Member
• COUNTER Member  
• The MIT Press colophon is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

• Essay Database
• world trade center
• Greek Food and Culture
• The Future Portrayed I…
• Intercultural Communications
• In Heart of Darkness, …
• Things Fall Apart by C…
• In J.M. Coetzee's Wait…
• The Criminals Of Profe…
• Socialization of Children
• The Poet of Nature, Wi…
• Leonhard Euler
• Articles of Confederat…
• About all Sharks
• Vietnam Poetry

The Federalists vs. The Anti-Federalists

What is paper-research.

• Custom Writing Service
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy
• Biographies

128 Federalism Essay Topics & Examples

Need to write a federalism essay? Looking for good federalism topics and samples for inspiration? This article is a great place to start!

⭐ Federalism Essay Prompts: Federalism in the United States

🏆 best federalism topics & essay examples, 🎓 good research topics about federalism, 🔍 federalism essay topics: simple & easy, 💡 most interesting federalism topics to write about, ❓ federalism essay questions.

What is federalism? Essay writing always starts with research, and we can help you with it. In short, federalism is a mode of government that combines general and regional governments. Your argumentative federalism essay can focus on federalism’s importance. Or, you can show your understanding of a unique system of governance in the United States.

In this article, you will find 74 excellent federalism essay topics and research ideas. You can also read our samples and use our free topic generator !

With its extensive territory and large population, the US required a robust government to sustain its infrastructure and grow into the global superpower it is today. However, its unique circumstances at the time of the formation made methods that were standard at the time inapplicable, forcing the Founding Fathers to innovate.

As a result, even two hundred years later, each state retains a considerable degree of independence. Your essay can cover any of the many different topics of federalism and its theoretical and practical applications:

• You can center your essay on the conflicting ideas of Aristotelian happiness and utilitarianism, with the Republican and Democratic parties representing the options, respectively. The purpose of a country is to make sure that its citizens are as happy and comfortable as they can be. However, the task becomes complicated when the question of what happiness means is taken into consideration.
• The emergence of the United States as a federation is a great federalism essay topic that can be explained by the circumstances of the nation’s formation. After fighting off the British in the Revolutionary War, the territory that would become the United States remained a loose alliance of small states, which can be considered a confederation. However, the system was ultimately non-viable, and the Founding Fathers had to create a more centralized country by creating and ratifying the Constitution.
• Alternatively, you can focus on the role if Constitution and its history. At first, many states formed anti-federalist movements and opposed the initiative, but eventually, they agreed to it after their concerns were addressed in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been amended many times, but its core has remained unchanged. The United States is still a federation, and its states can adopt many critical laws without requiring the approval of the central government.
• Discuss the idea of federalism in other countries that do not currently use it, providing examples. How much do the United States’ unique circumstances contribute to its ability to maintain a federation?
• Talk about examples of other federations that currently exist or have existed in the past. Some of their models differ considerably from that used in the United States.
• Discuss the idea of confederations and the reason why few to no countries can be classified as one despite their titles.

Find more ideas and excellent federalism essay samples below!

• Federalism of the United States The end result showed that the federal government was using publicly owned land, which in the end, belonged to all citizens of the United States, thus the local state government had to make sure the […]
• Federalist Paper Number 10 It is one of the most influential papers and it talks about faction and the role of government in regulating it as well as liberty. According to him, legislation should be put in place to […]
• Federalism System, Its Advantages and Disadvantages The system causes government to have control of itself because of great rivalry of power between the state and the nation.
• The United States Federalism and Political Culture Having established the central values of the United States’ political culture, it is worth discussing how some of them align with the concepts of federalism and anti-federalism. Therefore, it can be concluded that federalism is […]
• “American Federalism” Article by Derthick This article considers the issue of the effective distribution of powers between the central and federal administrations. Thus, it shows the division of powers between the national and federal administrations in 1965-1980 and the current […]
• Healthcare Regulations and Federalism’s Impact Although the ACA established the regulations for getting the coverage on federal levels, the government had to allow local policy-making due to the high autonomy of many regions.
• The Account of the Pros and Cons of Federalism To conclude, federalism and devolution are rather efficient forms of the state government provided they are properly implemented in the country.
• The Federalist Papers to Understand the United States Constitution The purpose of the federalist papers was to convince the people of New York to ratify the proposed constitution because most of the other states had already done so.
• The Impact of Fiscal Federalism on Financial Operations The ADA requirements influenced the fiscal and budgetary operations of American College Health Association in terms of enforcement of employment rights and observing the rights of employers and students with disabilities.
• Cooperative Federalism in the USA A vivid example of the implementation of the concept of dual federalism is the United States of America in the form in which they were initially formed.
• American Federalism: Why It Is Good for the Nation? In conclusion, it is necessary to note that historical, political, and cultural peculiarities of the United States make federalism the most appropriate type of governance for the country.
• The Major Eras of American Federalism The second category consists of the powers, which are “not delegated to [the national government of] the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states” and are referred to as the […]
• Fiscal Federalism: The Performance of Third-Party Implementers In the article ‘Public Performance and Management Review,’ the research question is “what can states do to maximize the performance of third-party implementers in the context of fiscal federalism?” The theory included a review of […]
• 10th Amendment & Federalism The 10th Amendment reads “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.
• The Constitutional Debate About Government and Federalism The government provided for by this document was weak and this necessitated drafting of the American constitution after Shays Rebellion in the spring of 1787. There have been major changes in the media and technology […]
• The Current State of Federalism in the 21st Century The outcome of the civil war of the 60-is of the XIX century was the doctrine of eternal union, recognizing the U.S.as a single state, created by the will of the entire American people, excluding […]
• Federalism, Intergovernmental Relations, Fragmegration Finally there will be an analysis made of the difference in the theory of Fenno, Dahl and Lowi as compared to the normal text book definitions in regard to representation and legislation.
• Federalism Advantages and Disadvantages This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of a federal system of government. A federal government can either be centralized where the central government has broad powers compared to state or provincial powers, or a […]
• Constitutionalism and Federalism in State Politics The Constitution highlighted the fundamentals of American federalism and testified the domination of the centralization. As it can be view, the problem of centralization and decentralization was of great concern in the course of the […]
• Federalism and Medical Marijuana Needless to say, United States faced political and social challenges as well, and the disputes over federalism and over the legal use of marijuana in medicine are still the most burning and controversial issues in […]
• Federalists, Anti-federalist, and Republican Debate Generally, the state, that: It gave too much authority to the nationwide administration at the expenditure of the state management. Of these criticisms, the lack of a bill of rights was the most efficient.
• Political Science. The Federalist Papers The inspiration for this constitution, the framework, the framers, and the people who opted to choose the right path and inspiration, is the subject for this paper.
• Federalism Implications for Medicaid in California An example used to compare and contrast the two metaphors is the system of Medicaid as controlled by the federal government and by the state government.
• Federalism and Gun Control in the United States 2 Each type of government possesses a set of duties and powers that it can exercise in the region, and the relationship between the levels is established in the Constitution.
• Federalism: Policy Issues and Recommended Changes The concept of federalism is a well-known political trend, and the emphasis on its promotion is the practice that leaders of many states adhere to and develop.
• Constitutional Convention of 1787 and Federalism James Madison was the key player on the issue of commerce under the Articles of the Confederation. He wanted the states to maintain the standards for the success of the social programs he wanted to […]
• Federalism and Government Styles in the United States It is because the individual at the top is held accountable by the leaders of the local authorities. Top on the list is the fact that the division of power between the central government and […]
• Presidential Power in Hamilton’s Federalist No. 70 The analogy presented in the Federalist paper number seventy formed the basis of the present-day powerful executive in the United States.
• Judicial Branch in Hamilton’s Federalist Papers In this context, the purpose of the judicial branch should not be misunderstood and viewed with reference to the purposes of the executive and legislative branches.
• Aristocracy Assailed: The Ideology of Backcountry Anti-Federalism The author examines the views of the consensus historians and the attitudes of the anti-federalists towards the idea of American democracy.
• Contemporary American Federalism Dual federalism is a system characterized by a national government that only governs by the rules that have been laid out in the constitution, national and state governments that are supreme in their allocated spheres […]
• Federalist Paper No. 51 He states that all the different arms of the government, as per the constitution, should be independent of one another though they should work in the direction of achieving the same constitutional goals it was […]
• The Aggranoff’s Version of Federalist No. 44 Provision of the relevant leadership and administrative is by implementing policies and procedures that are standard in relation with what the nation anticipates. Additionally, evaluation of citizens’ performance in the work field and confirming whether […]
• Significance of Anti-Federalist Papers Therefore, it is important to note that the anti-federalist paper served as an alternative voice by helping to pinpoint spheres that needed to be rectified to ensure that the constitution that was in the process […]
• No Child Left behind Act: Federalism Concept Based on the three branches of a federal government, the legislative branch is bestowed with the responsibility of making the law.
• Federalism and Policy Formulation This should be made with regard to views of the stakeholders since every federal government’s view must be represented in formulating the policies.
• Current Issue in Federalism This has triggered the debate to shift from the state courts and legislatures to the federal courts with the interest groups looking for the best platform to present their case.
• Federalism and separation of powers In the American constitution, specific powers were bestowed upon the national government and in the tenth amendment of 1791, it stated “the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by […]
• The Bill of Rights and the Anti-Federalist Concerns The Effects of the Bill of Rights Due to these facts and the essence of the Bill of Rights, it can be said that the efforts of the Anti-Federalists were not in vain.
• Costs and Benefits of Federalism Conflicts between the state and national government in the running of the United States is one of the major costs of federalism. Federalism leads to the formation of small political units that help in the […]
• Federalism in the United States The power assignments of the national government comprises of both implied and expressed powers. The Implied powers permit the central government to come up with decisions, which are not part of the expressed powers.
• The Case for a Federalism Amendment The main agenda here is the evenness or equality on how the powers are shared between the federal government and the states governments without interfering with the rights of their people. For instance, the states […]
• Modern American Federalism Development and evolution of democracy over the centuries has been focusing on devolution of central powers of government to increase independence of the local states.
• The Evolution of American Federalism Madison alone wrote over 20 articles on the subject and helped in the development and ratification of the US constitution and the 39th article as well as Federalist 51 is regarded as the most indicative […]
• Federalism in United States Federalism is therefore defined as a coordination of the regime in which control and the influence of power is partitioned with an attempt to distribute it in the central government and the constituent supporting units.
• An Overview of the Change of Federalism and the Great Depression
• The Implications of Elections for Federalism in Iraq: Toward a Five-Region Model
• A Look at Power Shifts in Intergovernmental Relations as a Result of Fiscal Federalism
• The Major Role Federalism Has Played in Our Government
• Understanding the Political Ideology of Federalism and the Role of the Federal Government
• An Initial Evaluation of Revenue-Sharing Arrangements in the New South African Fiscal Federalism
• A Comparison of Federalism and Anti-Federalism and Their Arguments
• Using Benefit-Cost Criteria for Settling Federalism Disputes: An Application to Food Safety Regulation
• Adjusting To Economic Growth In Toronto Amalgamation And Federalism
• Why Is Federalism Is The Best Option For The Philippines
• Advantages And Disadvantages Of American Federalism
• An Analysis of the Essential Principles of Federalism in the United States Government
• An Analysis of the Three Examples of How Federalism Which Evolved From Its Origins To the American Political System
• The Political Economy of Immigration Enforcement: Conflict and Cooperation under Federalism
• A Fiscal Federalism Analysis of Debt Policies by Sovereign Regional Governments
• An Evaluation of Federalism and the Civil War in America
• What Is Federalism And How Does It Relate To State Governments And Other Forms Of Governance
• Beyond National Standards: Reconciling Tension between Federalism and the Welfare State
• An International Multi-Level System of Competition Laws: Federalism in Antitrust
• Understanding Federalism Based on the Section: Picket-Fence Federalism
• The Possible Impact of Federalism in the Government of America
• The Tragedy of the Commons or the Curse of Federalism
• A Research on American History: Federalism in the United States
• An Overview of the Power Shift in Intergovernmental Relations as a Result of Fiscal Federalism
• The National Schoolmarm: No Child Left Behind and the New Educational Federalism
• The Relation of Federalism and Poverty in the US
• A Report on the Methods of the Constitution to Guard Against Tyranny: Federalism, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, and Equal Representation
• Walking in the Shadow of Pressman and Wildavsky: Expanding Fiscal Federalism and Goal Congruence Theories to Single-Shot Games
• A Description of Federalism as a Type of Government Where Power is Separated Between a National Government and Various Regional Governments
• A Description of the Federalist Papers and Federalism
• Asymmetric Information and Regional Transfers: Federalism versus Devolution
• The Role Of Federalism And Its Effect On American Government
• A Fatal Distraction from Federalism – Religious Conflict in Rakhine
• An Empirical Study of US Environmental Federalism: RCRA Enforcement From 1998 to 2011
• An Analysis of the Extent of the Influence of the Constitution and Federalism on the Political Culture of the United States
• An Analysis of the Federalism in the Government System of 18th Century United States
• An Analysis of the Political System of Federalism in the United States of America
• Adapting Federalism: Indigenous Multilevel Governance in Canada and the United States
• A Reconsideration of Environmental Federalism
• The Welfare Economics of Autarky, Federalism, and Federation Formation
• An Introduction to the Analysis of Federalism
• A Description of American Federalism as a Form of Government in Which the Constitution Distributes Governmental Powers
• Between the National Government
• The Lessons That The American Experience With Federalism
• The Institutional Basis of Secessionist Politics: Federalism and Secession in the United States
• An Analysis of Federalism and the French Canadians, an Ideological Anthology by Pierre Elliot Trudeau
• What Makes Strong Federalism Seem Weak? Fiscal Resources and Presidential-Provincial Relations in Argentina
• The Origin in Forming a Governmental Structure in Favor of the Newly Formed Constitution of Federalism
• Understanding the Concept of Federalism in Political Science
• The Use of Federalism in the Philippines Under the Administration of President Duterte
• Abortion: The Impact of Federalism and the Separation of Power
• The Role of Liberty and Democracy in the Enhancement of the Principles of Canadian Federalism in the Present and Future
• Bargaining for Fiscal Control: Tax Federalism in Brazil and Mexico, 1870-1940
• What Are Advantages and Disadvantages of Division of Powers and Checks and Balances and Federalism?
• Who Limits Environmental Federalism in Croatia?
• What Was the New Deal and Why Was It So Important in Terms of Federalism?
• How Has Federalism Changed the Nation?
• What Explains the Paradox of Tobacco Control Policy Under Federalism in the U.S. And Canada?
• Does Federalism Weaken Democratic Representation in the United States?
• What Makes Strong Federalism Seem Weak?
• Why Did Framers Choose Federalism?
• What Is a Benefit of Federalism?
• How Has Federalism Changed Since the Ratification of the Constitution?
• What Role Does the “Federalism Bonus” Play in Presidential Selection?
• Can Courts Make Federalism Work?
• How Does Federalism Protect Future Generations From Today’s Public Debts?
• What Is the 10th Amendment and Why Is It So Important to Understanding Federalism?
• Does Federalism Induce Patients’ Mobility Across Regions?
• How Has Indian Federalism Done?
• What Was the Great Society and Why Was It So Important in Terms of Federalism?
• Does Fiscal Federalism Promote Regional Inequality?
• How Have Federal Mandates Effected the Ideas of Federalism?
• Does Nature Limit Environmental Federalism?
• What Issues Most Influence Federalism Today?
• How Does Modern Federalism Work Effectively in a Complex, Networked World?
• What Are the Differences Between “Separation of Powers” and “Federalism”?
• Who Honors the Rules of Federalism?
• What Is Cooperative Federalism?
• Why Does Procedural Federalism Remain in the USA?
• What Is the Main Purpose of Federalism in Government?
• How Does Russian Federalism Work?
• What Did the Federalists Believe Threatened the Nation in the Election of 1800?
• Why Is Federalism Important to the Constitution?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 24). 128 Federalism Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/federalism-essay-examples/

"128 Federalism Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 24 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/federalism-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '128 Federalism Essay Topics & Examples'. 24 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "128 Federalism Essay Topics & Examples." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/federalism-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "128 Federalism Essay Topics & Examples." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/federalism-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "128 Federalism Essay Topics & Examples." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/federalism-essay-examples/.

• Democracy Titles
• Revolution Essay Topics
• Industrial Revolution Research Ideas
• Dynasties Research Topics
• Environmentalism Essay Topics
• Government Regulation Titles
• Liberalism Research Topics
• Organizational Structure Essay Topics

• Contributors
• Newsletters

1 Trending: Babies By Any Means Necessary Won’t Fix The West’s Fertility Woes

2 trending: joe biden is selling out israel to the antisemitic mob, 3 trending: did federal agencies plant classified documents to frame trump, 4 trending: apple’s ipad ad boasts of replacing the real with the fake, unc under fire after professors threaten to hold grades hostage in solidarity with hamas.

The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill confirmed reports of professors punishing students by refusing to submit grades.

• Share Article on Facebook
• Share Article on Twitter
• Share Article on Truth Social
• Copy Article Link
• Share Article via Email

The University of North Carolina is facing criticism after instructors announced they would withhold grades from students until the school reinstated individuals suspended for pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus.

On Monday, the university at Chapel Hill confirmed reports of professors punishing students by refusing to submit grades unless the school administration ends suspensions of those who engaged in protests last week. Nick Craig, a local radio host in Wilmington, North Carolina, published a screenshot of a professor’s message to students about holding their grades hostage.

“The University has suspended 15 of your and my fellow students for their participation in a peaceful protest calling for UNC to divest funding for Israel’s military action against civilians in Gaza,” said the unnamed teacher. “In solidarity with these students, I (along with many other faculty, teaching assistants, fellows, and graders across campus) have decided to withhold my reporting of final grades to the Registrar’s Office.”

BREAKING: A professor at UNC Chapel Hill is apparently going to withhold grades from students if the administration does not unsuspend students who were part of protests last week #ncpol #ncga pic.twitter.com/AdeBA3qca8 — Nick Craig (@nicholasmcraig) May 6, 2024

In a joint statement to The Federalist, UNC-Chapel Hill Provost Chris Clemens and Graduate School Dean Beth Mayer-Davis confirmed the anonymous report posted on X.

“We are hearing concerns from students whose instructors have informed them they will withhold grades as part of a protest,” they said. “These students depend on the timely submission of their grades for graduation, jobs, and athletic eligibility, and it is part of the required duties of all faculty and graduate TAs to submit grades by the registrar deadlines.”

The administrators said, “The provost’s office will support sanctions for any instructor who is found to have improperly withheld grades, but [it] is our hope we can resolve this matter amicably and without harm to students.”

UNC faced immediate controversy over faculty threats to withhold grades in solidarity with pro-Palestinian demonstrators, with users on X demanding officials fire instructors participating in the pressure campaign. The school refused to reveal the names of those involved.

If professors at UNC are refusing to issue grades to students, that is fraud, and the university and its professors should be hauled into court and held accountable for it. https://t.co/Fi7RodGGNC — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) May 6, 2024

Demonstrations supporting the Iranian-backed terrorist group defending the Gaza Strip drew national attention last week when members of a school fraternity protected an American flag torn down by terrorist sympathizers. A GoFundMe page set up for the UNC-Chapel Hill chapter of Pi Kappa Phi to reward the brothers with a party raised more than half a million in donations a week later.

One of the best photos of 2024 so far: Fraternity brothers are pelted by anti-Israel protesters at UNC Chapel Hill while protecting the United States flag as it is re-hoisted following its removal by protesters. Well done, gentleman. 🫡🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/0DiBQcVLBu — Max Meyer (@mualphaxi) May 1, 2024

“Commie losers across the country have invaded college campuses to make dumb demands of weak University Administrators,” the crowdsourced fundraising page reads. “But amidst the chaos, the screaming, the anti-semitism, the hatred of faith and flag, stood a platoon of American heroes.”

According to The New York Post, three dozen pro-Hamas demonstrators were arrested in campus demonstrations last week at UNC. On Monday, more than 700 school faculty delivered a petition to university leadership demanding students who were suspended over protests be reinstated and granted amnesty.

Pro-Hamas sit-ins or encampments have been reported across at least 120 universities, causing some to grapple with whether to hold spring commencement ceremonies. Officials at Columbia University, which became the epicenter of the latest antisemitic outbreak last month, announced Monday the school would cancel the traditional grand ceremony for graduates after weeks of sustained protests. Columbia’s decision follows the University of Southern California’s announcement in April to do the same .

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that activists have prepared for these demonstrations for months with trainings planned and funded by left-wing groups, some of which have been affiliated with the Communist Party.

“At Columbia University, in the weeks and months before police took down encampments at the New York City campus and removed demonstrators occupying an academic building, student organizers began consulting with groups such as the National Students for Justice in Palestine, veterans of campus protests and former Black Panthers,” read the Journal. “Though there isn’t a centralized command overseeing the student movement opposing Israel’s invasion of Gaza, there are connections between longstanding far-left groups and the protesters.”

• Campus protests
• campus riots
• campus unrest
• Chapel Hill
• North Carolina
• Palestinian supporters
• Palestinians

More from Campus Insanity

Campus Terrorists Demand A Steady Supply Of Gluten-Free Meals

Can Frat Bros Save The Republic?

Biden’s Student Loan Bailout Sends Taxpayer Funds To On-Campus Mobs

Trust Fund Kids Protesting On Campuses Know Nothing About Oppression

Watching My Wife Become A Mom Gave Me A New Appreciation Of A Mother’s Sacrificial Love

Pressure Grows For Ohio Speaker To Advance Bill Keeping Foreign Cash Out Of Elections

This Week In Lawfare Land: Prosecutor Misconduct Jeopardizes Another Case

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Endorses Democrats’ Unpopular Abortion Until Birth Agenda

Introducing

The Federalist Community

Join now to unlock comments, browse ad-free, and access exclusive content from your favorite FDRLST writers

Start your FREE TRIAL