federalist or anti federalist essay

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. Kifaru

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

2 pages / 721 words

2 pages / 928 words

2 pages / 780 words

2 pages / 939 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 [...]

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; [...]

"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. [...]

This essay will discuss globalization which is a process that refers to international integration among countries, economies, regions, and individuals in order to create a global network. Examples of globalization which occur in [...]

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 [...]

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. 25 Nov 2023. < >

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.

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

MA in American History : Apply now and enroll in graduate courses with top historians this summer!

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

History Resources

The United States Constitution: Federalists v. Anti-Federalists

By tim bailey, unit objective.

This unit is part of Gilder Lehrman’s series of Common Core State Standards–based teaching resources. These units were developed to enable students to understand, summarize, and analyze original texts of historical significance. Through a step-by-step process, students will acquire the skills to analyze any primary or secondary source material.

Today students will participate as members of a critical thinking group and "read like a detective" in order to analyze the arguments made by the Federalists in favor of ratifying the new US Constitution.

Introduction

Tell the students that after the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, the nation’s new Constitution had to be ratified by the states. The debate over ratification became very heated, especially in New York. This led to a spirited exchange of short essays between the Federalists, who promoted the new Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists, who put forward a variety of objections to the proposed new government. Today we will be closely reading excerpts from four of the Federalist Papers in order to discover what the Federalists’ positions and arguments were. Although the Federalist Papers were written anonymously under the pen name "Publius," historians generally agree that the essays were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

• Federalist Papers #1, #10, #51, and #84 (excerpts) . Source: The full text of all the Federalist Papers are available online at the Library of Congress.
• US Constitution, 1787 . Source: Charters of Freedom , National Archives and Records Administration, www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters
• Overhead projector or other display

The students will encounter vocabulary that they do not know. There are words in eighteenth-century essays that many adults do not know the meaning of either. It would be overwhelming to give the definition for every unknown word as well as self-defeating when we are trying to get the students to be more independent learners. One benefit of having the students work in groups is that they can reason out the meanings of words in context together. If the students are truly stuck on a word that is critical to the passage, you can open up a class discussion. As a last resort, you can provide the meaning.

First, a caution: do not reveal too much to the students about the arguments presented by either the Federalists or Anti-Federalists. The point is to let the students discover them through careful reading of the text and discussion with their classmates. They will then construct their own arguments based on the text. Depending on the length of the class period or other factors, this lesson may carry over into tomorrow as well.

• Divide the class into groups of three to five students. These will be the "critical thinking groups" for the next several days.
• Discuss the information in the introduction. The students need to at least be familiar with the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention, and the writing of the US Constitution.
• Hand out the four excerpts from Federalist Papers #1, #10, #51, and #84. If possible have a copy up on a document projector so that everyone can see it and you can refer to it easily.
• "Share read" the Federalist Papers with the students. This is done by having the students follow along silently while the teacher begins reading aloud. The teacher models prosody, inflection, and punctuation. The teacher then asks the class to join in with the reading after a few sentences while the teacher continues to read along with the students, still serving as the model for the class. This technique will support struggling readers as well as English language learners (ELL).
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that groups interested in "the rights of the people" more often end up as "tyrants."
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that the "effects" include "a division of society," and the remedy is the formation of "a republic."
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that "such devices [separation of powers] should be necessary to control the abuses of government" and "you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
• Answers will vary, but in the end they should conclude that "the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS . . ."
• Wrap-up: Discuss final conclusions and clarify points of confusion. We want students to be challenged, not overwhelmed.

Today students will participate as members of a critical thinking group and "read like a detective" in order to analyze the arguments made by the Anti-Federalists in opposition to ratifying the new US Constitution.

Review the background information from the last lesson. Today we will be closely reading excerpts from four of the Anti-Federalist Papers in order to discover just what the Anti-Federalists’ positions and arguments were. Although the Anti-Federalists’ essays were written anonymously under various pen names, most famously "Brutus," historians generally agree that among the authors of the Anti-Federalist essays were Robert Yates, Samuel Bryan, George Clinton, and Richard Henry Lee.

• Anti-Federalist Papers #1, #9, #46, and #84 (excerpts) . Source: Morton Borden, ed. The Antifederalist Papers (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1965). Unlike the Federalist Papers, the essays by Anti-Federalists were not conceived of as a unified series. Thus historians have imposed different numbering systems as they compiled various essays; the numbers used here are Morton Borden’s chronology.
• US Constitution, 1787
• Overhead projector or other display method

As in the previous lesson, encourage students to reason out the meanings of words they do not know. If the students are truly stuck on a word that is critical to the passage, you can open up a class discussion. As a last resort, you can provide the meaning.

• Students should sit with their critical thinking groups from the last lesson.
• Discuss the information in the introduction.
• Hand out the four excerpts from Anti-Federalist Papers #1, #9, #46, and #84. If possible have a copy up on a document projector so that everyone can see it and you can refer to it easily.
• "Share read" the Anti-Federalist Papers with the students.
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that the "Aristocracy" and "Lawyers" are out to deceive "The People" in order to "satiate their voracious stomachs with the golden bait."
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that this Anti-Federalist Paper is a satire and that the evidence includes statements such as "totally incapable of thinking or acting" and "have power over little else than yoking hogs."
• Answers will vary, but in the end the students should conclude that "the Congress are therefore vested with the supreme legislative powers" and "undefined, unbounded and immense power."
• Answers will vary but in the end they should conclude that "but rulers have the same propensities as other men, they are likely to use the power with which they are vested, for private purposes" and "grand security to the rights of the people is not to be found in this Constitution."

The students will deeply understand the major arguments concerning the ratification of the US Constitution. This understanding will be built upon close analysis of the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. The students will demonstrate their understanding in both writing and speaking.

Tell the students that now they get to apply their knowledge and understanding of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments. They will need to select a debate moderator from within their group and divide the remaining students into Federalists and Anti-Federalists. As a group they will write questions based on the issues presented in the primary documents. They will also script responses from both sides based solely on what is written in the documents. This is not an actual debate but rather a scripted presentation for the sake of making arguments that the authors of these documents would have made in a debate format. In the next lesson the groups will present their debates for the class.

• Federalist Papers #1, #10, #51, and #84 (excerpts)
• Anti-Federalist Papers #1, #9, #46, and #84 (excerpts)

Students will be sitting with the same critical thinking group as in the previous two lessons. All of the students should have copies of the excerpts from the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers as well as the United States Constitution as reference materials.

• Tell the students that they need to choose one person to be a debate moderator and then divide the rest of the group into Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
• Inform the students that they will be writing a script for a debate based on the issues raised in the primary documents that you have been studying. This script is to be written as a team effort, and everyone in the group will have a copy of the final script.
• The teacher will provide three questions that all groups must address during the debate. However, the students should add another two to four questions that can be answered directly from the primary source material.
• It is important that the students portraying both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists use the actual text from the documents to make their arguments.
• What is your position on a bill of rights being added to the Constitution?
• How would you address concerns about the "powers of government" under this new Constitution?
• Can you explain why this Constitution is or is not in the best interests of our nation as a whole?
• Students can then construct their own questions to be directed to either side with the opportunity for rebuttal from the other side.
• Remind the students again that everyone needs to work on the script and the responses must be taken directly from the text of the documents introduced in class.
• Wrap-up: If students have time, let them rehearse their presentations for the next lesson.

The students will demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments. This is not an actual debate but a scripted presentation making arguments that the authors of these documents would have made in a debate format.

Students will be sitting with the same critical thinking groups as in the previous three lessons. All of the students should have copies of the excerpts from the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers as well as the United States Constitution as reference materials.

• Tell the students that they will be presenting the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists that they scripted in the last lesson.
• The Moderator should begin the debate by introducing both sides and setting out the protocol for the "debate." (Actually watching a clip of a debate might be helpful as well.)
• In evaluating the student work you should measure the following: Did the students effectively address all three mandatory questions using text-based evidence? Did the additional questions developed by the students address pertinent issues? Were all of the students in a group involved in the process?
• Wrap-up: As time allows, have students debrief the last four lessons and what they learned.
• OPTIONAL: If you believe that you need to evaluate more individualized understanding of the issues presented over the past four lessons you can have students write a short essay addressing the three mandatory questions that they were given as a group.

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

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

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

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

Start your constitutional learning journey

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

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

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

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

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

New exhibit

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

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

Who were the Anti-Federalists?

The Anti-Federalists opposed the new Constitution.

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

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

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

In addition, Anti-Federalist support was stronger:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even so, the Anti-Federalists almost won.

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

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

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

Founders’ Library

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

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

Who Were the Anti-Federalists?

• History & Major Milestones
• U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights
• U.S. Legal System
• U.S. Political System
• Defense & Security
• Campaigns & Elections
• Business & Finance
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government

Quick History of the Term ‘Anti-Federalists’

What drove the anti-federalists, the impacts of the anti-federalists, summary of differences between federalists and anti-federalists, federal court system, regulation of commerce, state militias, legacy of the anti-federalists.

• B.S., Texas A&M University

Not all Americans liked the new U.S. Constitution offered to them in 1787. Some, particularly the Anti-Federalists, downright hated it.

The Anti-Federalists were a group of Americans who objected to the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and opposed final ratification of the U.S. Constitution as approved by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Anti-Federalists generally preferred a government as formed in 1781 by the Articles of Confederation, which had granted the predominance of power to the state governments.

Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia – an influential colonial advocate for American independence from England – the Anti-Federalists feared, among other things, that the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution could enable the President of the United States to function as a king, turning the government into a monarchy. This fear can to some degree be explained by the fact that in 1789, most of the world’s governments were still monarchies and the function of a “president” was largely an unknown quantity.

Arising during the American Revolution , the term “federal” referred simply to any citizen who favored of the formation of a union of the 13 British-ruled American colonies and the government as formed under the Articles of Confederation .

After the Revolution, a group of citizens who specifically felt that the federal government under the Articles of Confederation should be made stronger labeled themselves the “Federalists.” 

The Articles of Confederation had created a confederation of states under which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States…” 

Operating under the Articles of Confederation the new United States had prevailed in the American Revolution , securing its independence from Britain. However, several weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation that could threaten the continued independence of the new nation soon became apparent. Some of the most glaring of these weaknesses included:

• Congress had no power to levy taxes.
• Congress had no power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce.
• There was no executive branch to enforce laws passed by Congress.
• There was no national court system or judicial branch.

Under the Articles of Confederation, each state considered its own sovereignty and inherent powers to be essential to the overall common good of the nation. This belief resulted in frequent arguments between the states. In addition, the states were reluctant and often refused to contribute funds to the financial support of the national government.

When the Federalists attempted to amend the Articles of Confederation to give the central government greater power, they began to refer to those who opposed them as “Anti-Federalists.”

Closely akin to people who advocate the more modern political concept of “ states’ rights ,” many of the Anti-Federalists feared that the strong central government created by the Constitution would threaten the popular sovereignty and independence of the individual states, localities, or individual citizens. 

Other Anti-Federalists saw the proposed new strong central government as another British Monarchy in disguise, which would soon come to threaten their individual rights and civil liberties . Yet others believed that while the national government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak, the national government under the Constitution would be too strong. They felt that the new Constitution created a centralized rather than federal government in which two levels of government exercise a range of control over the same geographic area. In The Federalist Papers, James Madison had admitted that the confederation of independent states as created by the Articles of Confederation represented a truly federal form of government.  

As the individual states debated ratification of the Constitution, a wider national debate between the Federalists —who favored the Constitution—and the Anti-Federalists—who opposed it—raged in speeches and extensive collections of published articles.

Best known of these articles were the Federalist Papers , written variously by John Jay, James Madison and/or Alexander Hamilton, both explained and supported the new Constitution; and the Anti-Federalist Papers , published under several pseudonyms such as “Brutus” (Robert Yates), and “Federal Farmer” (Richard Henry Lee), opposed the Constitution.

At the height of the debate, famed revolutionary patriot Patrick Henry declared his opposition to the Constitution, thus becoming the figurehead of the Anti-Federalist faction.

The arguments of the Anti-Federalists had more impact in some states than in others. While the states of Delaware, Georgia, and New Jersey voted to ratify the Constitution almost immediately, North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to go along until it became obvious that final ratification was inevitable. In Rhode Island, opposition to the Constitution almost reached the point of violence when more than 1,000 armed Anti-Federalists marched on Providence.

Concerned that a strong federal government might reduce the peoples’ individual freedoms, several states demanded the inclusion of a specific bill of rights in the Constitution. Massachusetts, for example, agreed to ratify the Constitution only on the condition that it would be amended with a bill of rights. 

The states of New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York also made their ratification conditional pending the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution.

As soon as the Constitution had been ratified in 1789, Congress submitted a list of 12 bill of rights amendments to the states for their ratification. The states quickly ratified 10 of the amendments; the ten known today as the Bill of Rights. One of the 2 amendments not ratified in 1789 eventually became the 27th Amendment ratified in 1992.

After final adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Some former Anti-Federalists went on to join the Anti-Administration Party formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in opposition to the banking and financial programs of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. The Anti-Administration Party would soon become the Democratic-Republican Party, with Jefferson and Madison going on to be elected the third and fourth Presidents of the United States.

Thus, while the Anti-Federalists failed in their attempt to block the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts had not been totally in vain. By securing the integration of the Bill of Rights into the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists became recognized as an influential group among the Founding Fathers of the United States.

In general, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists disagreed on the scope of the powers granted to the central U.S. government by the proposed Constitution.

• Federalists tended to be businessmen, merchants, or wealthy plantation owners. They favored a strong central government that would have more control over the people than the individual state governments.
• Anti-Federalists worked mainly as farmers. They wanted a weaker central government that would mainly assist the state governments by providing basic functions like defense, international diplomacy , and setting foreign policy. 

There were other specific differences.

• Federalists wanted a strong federal court system with the U.S. Supreme Court having original jurisdiction over lawsuits between the states and suits between a state and a citizen of another state.
• Anti-Federalists favored a more limited federal court system and believed that lawsuits involving state laws should be heard by the courts of the states involved, rather than the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Federalists wanted the central government to have the power to levy and collect taxes directly from the people. They believed the power to tax was necessary to provide national defense and to repay debts to other nations.
• Anti-Federalists opposed the power, fearing it could allow the central government to rule the people and the states by imposing unfair and repressive taxes, rather than through representative government.
• Federalists wanted the central government to have sole power to create and implement U.S. commercial policy.
• Anti-Federalists favored commercial policies and regulations designed based on the needs of the individual states. They worried that a strong central government might use unlimited power over commerce to unfairly benefit or punish individual states or to make one region of the nation subservient to another. Anti-Federalist George Mason argued that any commercial regulation laws passed by the U.S. Congress should require a three-fourth, supermajority vote in both the House and Senate. He subsequently refused to sign the Constitution, because it did not include the provision.
• Federalists wanted the central government to have the power to federalize the militias of the individual states when needed to protect the nation.
• Anti-Federalists opposed the power, saying the states should have total control over their militias. 

Despite their best efforts, the Anti-Federalists failed to prevent the U.S. Constitution from being ratified in 1789. Unlike, for example, Federalist James Madison’s Federalist No. 10 , defending the Constitution’s republican form of government , few of the essays of the Anti-Federalists papers are taught today in college curricula or cited in court rulings. However, the influence of the Anti-Federalists remains in the form of the United States Bill of Rights . Though influential Federalists, including Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84 , argued vigorously argued against its passage, the Anti-Federalists prevailed in the end. Today, the underlying beliefs of the Anti-Federalists can be seen in the strong mistrust of a strong centralized government expressed by many Americans.  

• Main, Jackson Turner. “The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788.” University of North Carolina Press, 1961. https://books.google.com/books?id=n0tf43-IUWcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Anti+Federalists .
• “Lesson 1: Anti-federalist Arguments Against ‘A Complete Consolidation.’” The National Endowment for the Humanities , updated 2019. https://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plans/lesson-1-anti-federalist-arguments-against-complete-consolidation . 
• Federalism and the United States Constitution
• The Order in Which the States Ratified the US Constitution
• What Is Federalism? Definition and How It Works in the US
• The Original Bill of Rights Had 12 Amendments
• Why the Articles of Confederation Failed
• Preamble to the US Constitution
• Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase
• Why the Bill of Rights Is Important
• The 10th Amendment: Text, Origins, and Meaning
• The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution
• Fast Facts About the U.S. Constitution
• What Is Constitution Day in the United States?
• America's Most Influential Founding Fathers
• How to Amend the Constitution
• Basic Structure of the US Government
• American History Timeline: 1783-1800

The Debate Over the Judicial Branch

Antifederalists viewed the federal judiciary as a source of danger to individual liberty, the state judiciaries, and the future existence of the states themselves. The Constitution guaranteed jury trials in criminal cases, but it said nothing about civil cases. Thus, Antifederalists were concerned that the judicial power of the United States would compromise the right to jury trials in civil cases. They also noted that in criminal cases, juries of vicinage (local juries) were not guaranteed. This meant that individuals might need to travel distances of hundreds of miles to federal courts placing undue hardship on them. In cases that would come before the Supreme Court, travel could entail thousands of miles. Additionally, Antifederalists worried that the jurisdiction of the federal courts was too broad, and as federal power grew, which they believed was inevitable, more cases would be taken to federal courts rather than state courts, thus reducing the importance of state judiciaries. Since federal judges would be the interpreters of the ambiguities of the Constitution, the federal courts would accrue more power as they allowed federal power to expand at state expense.

Federalists responded that of the three branches, the judicial branch was “least dangerous,” because it only had the power of judgment. They denied that jury trials were always necessary or were endangered, either by the silence of the Constitution on civil cases or by the appellate jurisdiction of federal courts in matters of fact. They defended the jurisdiction of the federal courts as the only means to provide justice in foreign and interstate cases, and impose uniform obedience to the Constitution and federal law.

Federalists viewed the courts as the intermediary between the people and Congress and the Presidency. The courts, through judicial review, would uphold the Constitution against attempts by Congress or the President to enlarge their powers. As such, the judiciary was a protector of the people, not a danger to their liberties.

Among the issues that were not heavily debated, was judicial review since both recognized the judiciary would exercise this power under the new Constitution. The precedents of courts exercising the power of judicial review were well known to the Founders. In England the Law Lords served as a court of last resort. In both the Colonial Era and Post-Revolutionary Period, legislative councils continued this tradition. In New York, the Court of Error and Impeachment had review power. Thus, the idea of judicial review was not a new or radical idea during the Founding Period. However, during the ratification period, the debate centered on whether judicial review was synonymous with judicial supremacy. Federal courts in the proposed Constitution were uniquely independent from the other branches of government. This independence when coupled with the power of judicial review was central in the debates between Federalists and Antifederalists. Publius in The Federalist 78 suggested that having judicial review was advantageous because it afforded federal judges “an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humours in the society.” Antifederalist Brutus argued that federal judges would be “independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”

(F) Federalist Essays/Speeches (AF) Antifederalist Essays/Speeches

Criminal Cases

• Agrippa V, Massachusetts Gazette , 11 December 1787 (AF)

Decisions Not Reviewable

• Brutus XI, New York Journal , 31 January 1788 (AF)
• A Well-Wisher to Good Government, Virginia Independent Chronicle , 18 June 1788 (AF)

Equity Powers

• Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention, Pennsylvania Packet , 18 December 1787 (AF)
• Brutus XIII, New York Journal , 21 February 1788 (AF)
• George Mason Speech in the Virginia Convention, 19 June 1788 (AF)

Inferior Courts

• Cassius II: To Richard Henry Lee, Esquire, Virginia Independent Chronicle , 9 April 1788 (F)
• Edmund Pendleton Speech in the Virginia Convention, 20 June 1788 (F)
• Brutus I, New York Journal , 18 October 1787 (AF)

Judicial Independence

• Publius: The Federalist 78, Book Edition II, 28 May 1788 (F)
• Publius: The Federalist 81, Book Edition, 28 May 1788 (F)
• Brutus XI, New York Journal , 7 February 1788 (AF)
• Brutus XV, New York Journal , 20 March 1788 (AF)

Jurisdiction

• Aristides: Remarks on the Proposed Plan , 31 January 1788 (F)
• Hugh Williamson: Speech at Edenton, N.C., New York Daily Advertiser , 25-27 February 1788 (F)
• Publicola: An Address to the Freemen of North Carolina, State Gazette of North Carolina , 20 March 1788 (F)
• John Marshall Speech in the Virginia Convention, 20 June 1788 (F)
• Publius: The Federalist 80, Book Edition II, 28 May 1788 (F)
• Publius: The Federalist 81, Book Edition II, 28 May 1788 (F)
• James Madison Speech in the Virginia Convention, 20 June 1788 (F)
• A Democratic Federalist, Pennsylvania Herald , 17 October 1787 (AF)
• Centinel II, Philadelphia Freeman’s Journal , 24 October 1787 (AF)
• Boston American Herald , 7 January 1788 (AF)
• Luther Martin: Genuine Information X, Baltimore Maryland Gazette , 1 February 1788 (AF)
• Brutus XIV, New York Journal , 28 February 1788 (AF)
• Patrick Henry Speech in the Virginia Convention, 20 June 1788 (AF)

Jury Trials

• An American Citizen IV: On the Federal Government , Philadelphia, 21 October 1787 (F)
• One of the Middling-Interest, Massachusetts Centinel , 28 November 1787 (F)
• An Old Whig III, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer , 20 October 1787 (AF)
• Federal Farmer: An Additional Number of Letters to the Republican , New York, 2 May 1788 (AF)

Location and Access to Courts

• Patrick Henry Speech in the Virginia Convention, 5 June 1788 (AF)

Organization of the Judiciary

• A Landholder V, Connecticut Courant , 3 December 1788 (F)
• Cassius II: To Richard Henry Lee, Esquire, Virginian Independent Chronicle , 9 April 1788 (F)
• Federal Farmer, Letters to the Republican , c. 8 November 1787 (AF)

Review Powers

• James Wilson Speech in the Pennsylvania Convention, 1 December 1787 (F)
• Oliver Ellsworth Speech in the Connecticut Convention, 7 January 1788 (F)
• Publius: The Federalist 79, Book Edition II, 28 May 1788 (F)

Federalist 10: Democratic Republic vs. Pure Democracy

 by natalie bolton and gordon lloyd, introduction:.

To assist teachers in teaching the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Professor Gordon Lloyd  has created a website in collaboration with the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University on the Federalist and Antifederalist Debates . Professor Lloyd organizes the content of the debates in various ways on the website. Two lesson plans have been created to align with two of the most noted essays high school students are encouraged to read, Federalist 10 and Federalist 51 . Within each lesson students will use a Federalist Paper as their primary source for acquiring content.

Guiding Question:

Why can a republic protect liberties better than a democracy?

Learning Objectives:

After completing this lesson, students should be able to: Define faction in Federalist 10 . Analyze present day issues and determine if they qualify as a faction as defined in Federalist 10 . Explain why Madison advocated for a democratic republic form of government over a pure democracy in Federalist 10 .

Background Information for the Teacher:

The years were 1787 and 1788. Along with the debate over the Constitution that was taking place in the state legislatures, an “out-of-doors” debate raged in newspapers and pamphlets throughout America’s thirteen states following the Constitutional Convention over the Constitution that had been proposed. Origin of The Federalist The eighty-five essays appeared in one or more of the following four New York newspapers: 1) The New York Journal , edited by Thomas Greenleaf, 2) Independent Journal , edited by John McLean, 3) New York Advertiser , edited by Samuel and John Loudon, and 4) Daily Advertiser , edited by Francis Childs. Initially, they were intended to be a twenty essay response to the Antifederalist attacks on the Constitution that were flooding the New York newspapers right after the Constitution had been signed in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787. The Cato letters started to appear on September 27, George Mason’s objections were in circulation and the Brutus essays were launched on October 18. The number of essays in The Federalist was extended in response to the relentless, and effective, Antifederalist criticism of the proposed Constitution. McLean bundled the first 36 essays together—they appeared in the newspapers between October 27, 1787 and January 8, 1788—and published them as Volume 1 on March 22, 1788. Essays 37 through 77 of The Federalist appeared between January 11, and April 2, 1788. On May 28, McLean took Federalist 37-77 as well as the yet to be published Federalist 78-85 and issued them all as Volume 2 of The Federalist . Between June 14 and August 16, these eight remaining essays—Federalist 78-85—appeared in the Independent Journal and New York Packet . The Status of The Federalist One of the persistent questions concerning the status of The Federalist is this: is it a propaganda tract written to secure ratification of the Constitution and thus of no enduring relevance or is it the authoritative expositor of the meaning of the Constitution having a privileged position in constitutional interpretation? It is tempting to adopt the former position because 1) the essays originated in the rough and tumble of the ratification struggle. It is also tempting to 2) see The Federalist as incoherent; didn’t Hamilton and Madison disagree with each other within five years of co-authoring the essays? Surely the seeds of their disagreement are sown in the very essays! 3) The essays sometimes appeared at a rate of about three per week and, according to Madison, there were occasions when the last part of an essay was being written as the first part was being typed. 1) One should not confuse self-serving propaganda with advocating a political position in a persuasive manner. After all, rhetorical skills are a vital part of the democratic electoral process and something a free people have to handle. These are op-ed pieces of the highest quality addressing the most pressing issues of the day. 2) Moreover, because Hamilton and Madison parted ways doesn’t mean that they weren’t in fundamental agreement in 1787-1788 about the need for a more energetic form of government. And just because they were written with certain haste doesn’t mean that they were unreflective and not well written. Federalist 10, the most famous of all the essays, is actually the final draft of an essay that originated in Madison’s Vices in 1787, matured at the Constitutional Convention in June 1787, and was refined in a letter to Jefferson in October 1787. All of Jay’s essays focus on foreign policy, the heart of the Madisonian essays are Federalist 37-51 on the great difficulty of founding, and Hamilton tends to focus on the institutional features of federalism and the separation of powers. I suggest, furthermore, that the moment these essays were available in book form, they acquired a status that went beyond the more narrowly conceived objective of trying to influence the ratification of the Constitution. The Federalist now acquired a “timeless” and higher purpose, a sort of icon status equal to the very Constitution that it was defending and interpreting. And we can see this switch in tone in Federalist 37 when Madison invites his readers to contemplate the great difficulty of founding. Federalist 38 , echoing Federalist 1 , points to the uniqueness of the America Founding: never before had a nation been founded by the reflection and choice of multiple founders who sat down and deliberated over creating the best form of government consistent with the genius of the American people. Thomas Jefferson referred to the Constitution as the work of “demigods,” and The Federalist “the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written.” There is a coherent teaching on the constitutional aspects of a new republicanism and a new federalism in The Federalist that makes the essays attractive to readers of every generation. Authorship of The Federalist A second question about The Federalist is how many essays did each person write? James Madison—at the time a resident of New York since he was a Virginia delegate to the Confederation Congress that met in New York—John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton—both of New York—wrote these essays under the pseudonym, “Publius.” So one answer to the question is that how many essays each person wrote doesn’t matter since everyone signed off under the same pseudonym, “Publius.” But given the iconic status of The Federalist , there has been an enduring curiosity about the authorship of the essays. Although it is virtually agreed that Jay wrote only five essays, there have been several disputes over the decades concerning the distribution of the essays between Hamilton and Madison. Suffice it to note, that Madison’s last contribution was Federalist 63 , leaving Hamilton as the exclusive author of the nineteen Executive and Judiciary essays. Madison left New York in order to comply with the residence law in Virginia concerning eligibility for the Virginia ratifying convention . There is also widespread agreement that Madison wrote the first thirteen essays on the great difficulty of founding. There is still dispute over the authorship of Federalist 50-58, but these have persuasively been resolved in favor of Madison. Outline of The Federalist A third question concerns how to “outline” the essays into its component parts. We get some natural help from the authors themselves. Federalist 1 outlines the six topics to be discussed in the essays without providing an exact table of contents. The authors didn’t know in October 1787 how many essays would be devoted to each topic. Nevertheless, if one sticks with the “formal division of the subject” outlined in the first essay, it is possible to work out the actual division of essays into the six topic areas or “points” after the fact so to speak. Martin Diamond was one of the earliest scholars to break The Federalist into its component parts. He identified Union as the subject matter of the first thirty-six Federalist essays and Republicanism as the subject matter of last forty-nine essays. There is certain neatness to this breakdown, and accuracy to the Union essays. The first three topics outlined in Federalist 1 are 1) the utility of the union, 2) the insufficiency of the present confederation under the Articles of Confederation , and 3) the need for a government at least as energetic as the one proposed. The opening paragraph of Federalist 15 summarizes the previous fourteen essays and says: “in pursuance of the plan which I have laid down for the pursuance of the subject, the point next in order to be examined is the ‘insufficiency of the present confederation.'” So we can say with confidence that Federalist 1-14 is devoted to the utility of the union. Similarly, Federalist 23 opens with the following observation: “the necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic as the one proposed… is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.” Thus Federalist 15-22 covered the second point dealing with union or federalism. Finally, Federalist 37 makes it clear that coverage of the third point has come to an end and new beginning has arrived. And since McLean bundled the first thirty-six essays into Volume 1, we have confidence in declaring a conclusion to the coverage of the first three points all having to do with union and federalism. The difficulty with the Diamond project is that it becomes messy with respect to topics 4, 5, and 6 listed in Federalist 1 : 4) the Constitution conforms to the true principles of republicanism , 5) the analogy of the Constitution to state governments, and 6) the added benefits from adopting the Constitution. Let’s work our way backward. In Federalist 85 , we learn that “according to the formal division of the subject of these papers announced in my first number, there would appear still to remain for discussion two points,” namely, the fifth and sixth points. That leaves, “republicanism,” the fourth point, as the topic for Federalist 37-84, or virtually the entire Part II of The Federalist . I propose that we substitute the word Constitutionalism for Republicanism as the subject matter for essays 37-51, reserving the appellation Republicanism for essays 52-84. This substitution is similar to the “Merits of the Constitution” designation offered by Charles Kesler in his new introduction to the Rossiter edition; the advantage of this Constitutional approach is that it helps explain why issues other than Republicanism strictly speaking are covered in Federalist 37-46. Kesler carries the Constitutional designation through to the end; I suggest we return to Republicanism with Federalist 52 . Taken from the Introduction to The Federalist .

Preparing to Teach this Lesson:

Prior to teaching this lesson the teacher should cover content related to the Articles of Confederation and its weaknesses. The teacher should familiarize her/himself with Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention of 1787 on the following days outlined below. Gordon Lloyd has presented the content of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as a Four Act Drama . Additionally, the teacher should cover content related to Federalist and Antifederalist debates that occurred prior to Federalist 10 being published. Three activities are outlined below and should be implemented in order. Activity 1: Define faction in Federalist 10 . Activity 2: Analyze present day issues and determine if they qualify as a faction as defined in Federalist 10 . Activity 3: Analyzing Federalist 10 using APPARTS. For all activities, students will use Federalist 10 . To assist students in reading Federalist 10 , a paragraph-by-paragraph summary has been provided by Gordon Lloyd.

Analyzing Primary Sources:

If your students lack experience in dealing with primary sources, you might use one or more preliminary exercises to help them develop these skills. The Learning Page at the American Memory Project of the Library of Congress includes a set of such activities. Another useful resource is the Digital Classroom of the National Archives, which features a set of Document Analysis Worksheets . Finally, History Matters offers pages on “ Making Sense of Maps ” and “ Making Sense of Oral History ” which give helpful advice to teachers in getting their students to use such sources effectively.

Suggested Activities:

Activity 1: Define faction in Federalist 10

Time required for activity: In class activity 20 minutes.

The teacher will open day one of the lesson by sharing that Federalist 10 is one of 85 essays advocating for the ratification of the United States Constitution. Federalist 10 was written by James Madison and published on November 22, 1787 under the pseudonym Publius. In this essay, Madison addresses the question of how to guard against “factions,” or groups of citizens, with interests that are contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the community as a whole. Madison defined factions as groups of citizens with opinions, passions, or interests contrary to the interests of others or the well-being of others. These groups of citizens saw factions as irreconcilable differences that could not be negotiated or compromised (i.e. war, divorce).

This activity serves as an introduction to the lesson focusing on student understanding of the word faction. The teacher will ask students to move to a designated corner of the room based on their interest in completing one of the following products: illustration/drawing, mime/monument, Public Service Announcement (PSA), and written flyer. Each corner of the classroom will represent a product.

The teacher will tell students they have 10 minutes to create their designated product. All students will respond to the same question, “What is a faction?” Students will answer the question as an individual, in a small group, or whole group based on their interests and readiness. Students should use any resources they have available to assist in completing the activity. Students will then be asked to share their products with the class.

The teacher will then debrief the activity with students as they complete a verbal and visual word association on faction as a reflection activity ( see handout ). The teacher can use this completed task as a formative assessment for student understanding of the meaning of faction.

Activity 2: Factions and Current Issues

Time required for activity: 20 minutes To assist students in understanding factions that are present today, students will evaluate and discuss eight present day issues and determine if they qualify as a faction, as defined by Madison in Federalist 10 . Students will be asked to rate each issue on a three point scale with the anchors agree and disagree. The midpoint of the scale will read, don’t know. Teachers should give students the Current Issues Spectrum handout and ask them to read and rate the eight issues followed by an explanation. The teacher should make a poster for each of the current issues and have students place a mark and determine if the current issue is or is not a faction. Students can mark with a dot, post-it note, or marker. After students make their decisions, the class should discuss why they believe the issue is or is not a faction. The teacher should wrap-up the class discussion by asking students, “If the government has to make decisions on how to address the current issue, is it better to have every individuals voice be heard on every current event issue or is it better to have a representative from each of the anchors on the scale of each issue share their opinion? Are voices more powerful if they come from a large group of people together or from people who share the same ideas but live far apart from one another?

Activity 3: Interpreting and Evaluating Federalist 10

Time required for activity: In class reading assignment and completing an APPARTS graphic organizer, one 45 minute class period. Students may complete individually or in small groups. The teacher should remind students that Federalist 10 is one of 85 essays advocating for the ratification of the United States Constitution. Federalist 10 was written by James Madison and published on November 22, 1787 under the pseudonym Publius. In this essay, Madison addresses the question of how to guard against “factions,” or groups of citizens, with interests that are contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the community as a whole.

APPARTS Graphic Organizer

To help students understand the main ideas that emerged from Federalist 10, ask students to read Federalist 10 and complete the APPARTS graphic organizer handout . Students will use the APPARTS strategy to explain why James Madison advocated for a democratic republic form of government over a pure democracy in Federalist 10. Students may complete this task individually or in small groups.

Note: APPARTS is a strategy often used in Advanced Placement courses to analyze primary sources.

USING APPARTS TO ANALYZE PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS

To understand history or politics it is essential that you learn to critically examine significant primary source documents.

APPARTS is an “easy to remember” acronym for the following:

AUTHOR Who created the source? What do you know about the author? What is the author’s point of view?

PLACE AND TIME Where and when was the source produced? How might this affect the meaning of the source?

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE Beyond information about the author and the context of its creation, what do you know that would help you further understand the primary source? For example, do you recognize any symbols and recall what they represent?

AUDIENCE For whom was the source created and how might this affect the reliability of the source?

REASON Why was this source produced at the time it was produced?

THE MAIN IDEA What main point is the source trying to convey? What is the central message of the document?

SIGNIFICANCE Why is this source important? What inferences can you draw from this document? Ask yourself, “So what?” What should a student of history or politics take away from the analysis of this document?

Students may read the full-text of Federalist 10 or they can read a paragraph-by-paragraph summary written by Gordon Lloyd.

Depending on student content vocabulary readiness the teacher may need to review vocabulary used in Federalist 10. A teacher resource has been created using the Federalist 10 summary to review vocabulary using a word wall. The teacher will tell students that the class will be adding several words to the word wall today. Word walls are a literacy strategy that may be used before reading (explicit teaching and modeling, during reading (guided practice) and after reading (guided practice).

Assessment:

In 4-5 paragraphs, using your APPARTS analysis, write a reply to James Madison explaining if you agree or disagree with his perspective on the best form of government for the United States to protect individual liberties.

Extending the Lesson:

Extension 1: Compare how Madison discusses factions in Madison’s Vices , his June 6th speech during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and Federalist 10. Extension 2: Do you think that our government today effectively guards against factions? Why or why not? Explain. Extension 3: Do you think that if a government official went about gaining public support using the methods Madison did to ratify the Constitution, would they work into today’s society? Why or why not? Do you think this is good or bad? Why or why not?

Related EDSITEment Lesson Plans:

• The Federalist Debates: Balancing Power between State and Federal Governments

Selected Websites:

• James Madison, Federalist 10
• James Madison, Federalist 51

Standards Alignment:

• CIVICED (9-12) I What are Civic Life, Politics, and Government?
• CIVICED (9-12) II What are the Foundations of the American Political System?
• CIVICED (9-12) III How Does the Government Established by the Constitution Embody the Purposes, Values, and Principles of American Democracy?
• CIVICED (9-12) V What are the Roles of the Citizen in American Democracy?
• NCSS-10 Civic ideals and practices. Citizenship in a democratic republic.
• NCSS-4 Individual development and identity.
• NCSS-5 Individuals, groups, and institutions.
• NCSS-6 Power, authority, and governance.

Receive resources and noteworthy updates.

Click here for our new feature on Presidents & the First Amendment

An examination of all 46 presidents and their engagement with the First Amendment

• ENCYCLOPEDIA
• IN THE CLASSROOM

Home » Articles » Topic » Groups and Organizations » Federalists

Federalists

Written by Mitzi Ramos, published on July 31, 2023 , last updated on February 11, 2024

The name Federalists was adopted both by the supporters of ratification of the U.S. Constitution and by members of one of the nation’s first two political parties. Alexander Hamilton was an influential Federalist who wrote many of the essays in The Federalist, published in 1788. These articles advocated the ratification of the Constitution. Later, those who supported Hamilton’s aggressive fiscal policies formed the Federalist Party, which grew to support a strong national government, an expansive interpretation of congressional powers under the Constitution through the elastic clause, and a more mercantile economy. (Image via Wikimedia Commons, painted by John Trumbull circa 1805, public domain)

The name  Federalists  was adopted both by the supporters of ratification of the  U.S. Constitution  and by members of one of the nation’s first two political parties.

Federalists battled for adoption of the Constitution

In the clash in 1788 over ratification of the Constitution by nine or more state conventions, Federalist supporters battled for a strong union and the adoption of the Constitution, and  Anti-Federalists fought against the creation of a stronger national government and sought less drastic changes to the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor of the Constitution.

The Federalists included big property owners in the North, conservative small farmers and businessmen, wealthy merchants, clergymen, judges, lawyers, and professionals. They favored weaker state governments, a strong centralized government, the indirect election of government officials, longer term limits for officeholders, and representative, rather than direct, democracy.

Federalists published papers in New York City newspapers

Faced with forceful Anti-Federalist opposition to a strong national government, the Federalists published a series of 85 articles in New York City newspapers in which they advocated ratification of the Constitution. A compilation of these articles written by  James Madison ,  Alexander Hamilton , and John Jay (under the pseudonym Publius), were published as  The Federalist in 1788.

Through these papers and other writings, the Federalists successfully articulated their position in favor of adoption of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists wrote many essays of their own, but the Federalists were better organized; were (as their name suggested) advocating positive changes by proposing an alternative to the Articles of Confederation, which were generally considered to be inadequate; had strong support in the press of the day; and ultimately prevailed in state ratification debates.  These papers remain a vital source for understanding key provisions within the Constitution and their underlying principles. The Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates further illustrate the vigor of the rights to freedom of speech and press in the United States, even before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was adopted.

James Madison was another author of the Federalist Papers. To ensure adoption of the Constitution, the Federalists, such as James Madison, promised to add amendments specifically protecting individual liberties. These amendments, including the First Amendment, became the Bill of Rights. James Madison later became a Democratic-Republican and opposed many Federalist policies. (Image via the White House Historical Association, painted by John Vanderlyn in 1816, public domain)

Federalists argued separation of powers protected rights

In light of charges that the Constitution created a strong national government, they were able to argue that the separation of powers among the three branches of government protected the rights of the people. Because the three branches were equal, none could assume control over the other.

When challenged over the lack of individual liberties, the Federalists argued both that the Constitution already contained some such protections in Article I, Sections 9 and 10, that respectively limited Congress and the states; that the entire Constitution, with its institutional restraints and checks and balances was, in effect, a Bill of Rights; and that the Constitution did not include a bill of rights because the new Constitution did not vest the new government with the authority to suppress individual liberties.

The Federalists further argued that because it would be impossible to list all the rights afforded to Americans, it would be best to list none.

Prominent Anti-federalists like Patrick Henry , George Mason , and James Monroe and supporters of the new constitution like Thomas Jefferson , continued to argue that the people were entitled to more explicit declarations of their rights under the new government.

Federalists agree to add Bill of Rights 

In the end, however, to ensure adoption of the Constitution, the Federalists promised to add amendments specifically protecting individual liberties. That is, Federalists such as James Madison ultimately agreed to support a bill of rights largely to head off the possibility of a second convention that might undo the work of the first.

Thus upon ratification of the Constitution and his election to the U.S. House of Representatives, Madison introduced proposals that were incorporated in 12 amendments by Congress in 1789. States ratified 10 of these amendments, now designated as the Bill of Rights , in 1791.

The first of these amendments contains guarantees of freedom of religion , speech , press , peaceable assembly , and petition and has also been interpreted to protect the right of association . Initially adopted to limit only the national government, these provisions have now been recognized as also limiting the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War in 1868.

In 1798, during the administration of John Adams, the Federalists attempted to squelch dissent by adopting the Sedition Act, which restricted freedom of speech and the press. Although the Federalist Party was strong in New England and the Northeast, it was left without a strong leader after the death of Alexander Hamilton and retirement of Adams. Its increasingly aristocratic tendencies and its opposition to the War of 1812 helped to fuel its demise in 1816. (Image via the U.S. Navy, painted by Asher Brown Durand between 1735 and 1826, public domain)

Federalist Party supported Alexander Hamilton’s policies

Although the Bill of Rights enabled Federalists and Anti-Federalists to reach a compromise that led to the adoption of the Constitution, this harmony did not extend into the presidency of  George Washington ; political divisions within the cabinet of the newly created government emerged in 1792 over national fiscal policy, splitting those who previously supported the Constitution into rival groups, some of whom allied with former Anti-Federalists.

Those who supported Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s aggressive fiscal policies formed the Federalist Party, which supported a strong national government, an expansive interpretation of congressional powers under the Constitution through the elastic clause, and a more mercantile economy.

Their Democratic-Republican opponents, led by Secretary of State  Thomas Jefferson  and James Madison, tended to emphasize states’ rights and agrarianism.

In 1798, during the administration of John Adams , the Federalists attempted to squelch dissent by adopting the  Sedition Act , which restricted freedom of speech and the press when directed against the government and its officials, but opposition to this law helped Democratic-Republicans gain victory in the elections of 1800. As the new president, Jefferson pardoned those who had been convicted under the Sedition Act.

Federalist Party ended in 1816

Although the Federalist Party was strong in New England and the Northeast, it was left without a strong leader after the death of Alexander Hamilton and retirement of John Adams. Its increasingly aristocratic tendencies and its opposition to the War of 1812 helped to fuel its demise in 1816.

This party was later succeeded by the Whig Party, which in turn was succeeded by the Republican Party. The Democratic-Republican Party was reformed by Andrew Jackson and became the modern Democrat Party. 

This article was originally published in 2009 and was updated in February 2024 by John R. Vile, dean of the Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University. Mitzi Ramos is an Instructor of Political Science at Northeastern Illinois University.

Send Feedback on this article

How To Contribute

The Free Speech Center operates with your generosity! Please  donate now!

The Federalist Papers (1787-1788)

Additional Text

After the Constitution was completed during the summer of 1787, the work of ratifying it (or approving it) began. As the Constitution itself required, 3/4ths of the states would have to approve the new Constitution before it would go into effect for those ratifying states.

The Constitution granted the national government more power than under the Articles of Confederation . Many Americans were concerned that the national government with its new powers, as well as the new division of power between the central and state governments, would threaten liberty.

In order to help convince their fellow Americans of their view that the Constitution would not threaten freedom, James Madison , Alexander Hamilton , and John Jay teamed up in 1788 to write a series of essays in defense of the Constitution. The essays, which appeared in newspapers addressed to the people of the state of New York, are known as the Federalist Papers. They are regarded as one of the most authoritative sources on the meaning of the Constitution, including constitutional principles such as checks and balances, federalism, and separation of powers.

Related Resources

James Madison

No other Founder had as much influence in crafting, ratifying, and interpreting the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights as he did. A skilled political tactician, Madison proved instrumental in determining the form of the early American republic.

Alexander Hamilton

A proponent of a strong national government with an “energetic executive,” he is sometimes described as the godfather of modern big government.

John Jay epitomized the selfless leader of the American Revolution. Born to a prominent New York family, John Jay gained notoriety as a lawyer in his home state.

Federalist 10

Written by James Madison, this essay defended the form of republican government proposed by the Constitution. Critics of the Constitution argued that the proposed federal government was too large and would be unresponsive to the people.

Federalist 51

In this Federalist Paper, James Madison explains and defends the checks and balances system in the Constitution. Each branch of government is framed so that its power checks the power of the other two branches; additionally, each branch of government is dependent on the people, who are the source of legitimate authority.

Federalist 70

In this Federalist Paper, Alexander Hamilton argues for a strong executive leader, as provided for by the Constitution, as opposed to the weak executive under the Articles of Confederation. He asserts, “energy in the executive is the leading character in the definition of good government.

Would you have been a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist?

Federalist or Anti-Federalist? Over the next few months we will explore through a series of eLessons the debate over ratification of the United States Constitution as discussed in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. We look forward to exploring this important debate with you! One of the great debates in American history was over the ratification […]

Federalists and Anti-Federalists on Government Essay

Introduction, works cited.

When the fight for freedom had been fought and won, the Americans were finally free from the control of Great Britain. This however came with a new necessity; a new system of governance. The need was informed by the experience of colonization with the biggest concern being wiping out tyrannical leadership. Prior to this, the different states were governed and interconnected with The Articles of Confederation. The articles of Confederation however gave no power to the central government. This autonomous nature of the different states was recipe for confusion and disunity.

It was this that made it a necessity to have a document geared towards strengthening central government without compromising the freedom and safety of the states. This led to the drafting of the constitution. This process brought a sharp division of the Americans into two broad categories; those who were for the constitution and those who were opposed to the constitution. The ones supporting the document were referred to as federalist while those who opposed the document were referred to as ant federalist. The federalist believed the document was good while the ant federalists believed the document would not safeguard the interests of the states and of the people therein.

There is one thing that the two groups agreed on. The two different groups agreed on the fact that power was being abused. All of them had experienced the war and saw how Britain had violated their freedom. They were both conscious of the fact that there was looming threat for misuse of power unless a solution was realized. The federalists view was that the only sure way to have a lasting solution is through having the new constitution ratified. A constitution that would empower the central government to make it a watchdog for the other states would solve the situation. Wilson argued that it would not be in the best interests of the public to allow power to be in the hands of the legislature unless it was first put down in a legal binding document. This, he said, was the surest way to guard against the abuse of power.

The anti-federalists did not subscribe to this school of thought.While they had many concerns that they consistently raised; the major concern for the anti-federalists was the absolute power that had been vested in the central government as proposed in the new constitution. It is this point of view that fueled most subsequent debates before the ratification of the document. They held the view that the giving of power to the congress was dangerous as it would live the states as toothless dogs. Their fear was that the citizens would not be fairly represented by their own government. This was especially so because of the vastness of the land of America. The main idea of having one representative per state did not go well with the anti-federalists. They thought that one man is not sufficient to voice the opinions of hundreds of thousands of other people (Storing and Murray, 64). They believed that meaningful freedom can only be in a scenario where there are few people who can effectively project their voices. They believed that a too powerful central government would have policies that would not be friendly for the common man. For instance, they raised concerns about the economic security of farmers. They were concerned that the federal government would excessively impose taxes on the farmers which would leave them impoverished.

The anti-federalists believed that by forming a new system of governance, there would be the obvious need to raise money for the central government. This would mean imposing state taxes on the people. They also believed that imposing a state tax would be unfair. This was because different states had different needs and resources. It was a major decision which could have been able to destroy a state. The destruction could have either been economically or otherwise. They warned people to expect heavy taxation as a means that the new government would use to raise money.

All of this stemmed from the fear of the thought of giving absolute power to a central government. They didn’t want a federal government that would override the state government. They believed that the states should be left as autonomous as is practically possible. The anti-federalists were afraid that the government would meddle in the affairs of the different states and the dispensation would create a precipice for tyrannical leadership as the previous colonial masters.

On the other hand, Madison who was a prominent voice in the federalist papers disagreed on this. He explained that in fact, tyranny was made possible by having smaller units of governance. This was because, smaller groups of people were more exposed to bigger influence and manipulation by the leaders as opposed to larger populations. He observed that as the population increased, the window of manipulation, bribery and undue influence grew smaller and smaller.

Furthermore, Madison argued that a larger republic meant that there would be a larger pool of representatives from which the best would be selected to be their leaders. This would not only ensure that there would be a very high quality form of governance but it also ensured that the people had a variety of leaders to choose from. According to the federalist arguments, this was not possible for a small system of governance since there would be fewer people to select from which in its entirety would result in an unfair competition.

On absolute power being given to central government, the federalists looked at the issue differently but objectively. Madison pointed out that If you want to govern people, then the government that is governing the people must be made more powerful than the people it is governing in order to govern them effectively. This however was to be done in a way that would not compromise the freedom of the same people it was governing. In an attempt to explain this further, he wrote in Federalist 39 that the proposed document was both composite and federal thus forming a hybrid system.

Madison explained that the government would be composite in the sense that there were certain powers that impinged directly on the people. This mainly included the taxation power and election of House of Representatives. On the other hand the document could be seen as federal in the sense that the different states would be in effect smaller parts of the bigger government. This meant that in fact, the constitution would enhance efficiency of the states while strengthening the wider nation at large.

While this explanation seemed to have some weight, it resulted into another even more critical question; the question of basic human rights. The anti-federalists were afraid that the powerful government would infringe on the basic and fundamental human rights of the people. This fear of possible infringement of basic human rights by the government is what resulted in the debate about the bill of rights. The anti-federalists argued that it was important tot have a way of protecting the common men from interference by the government. A debate ensued back at the convention during the drafting process. Pertinent issues were raised. An example is the third amendment which touched on the right to privacy. It was crafted to ensure that the people’s freedom and right to privacy was not infringed upon by the army (Chin). The idea of the anti-federalist team was to have a form of protection for the people to ensure that the central government did not use its power to infringe on the rights of the common man.

Then there was the other concern raised by the anti-federalists. It was about the length or duration of time a constitutional office holder should serve. The anti-federalists were, for instance, not pleased with the idea of senators serving six year terms as had been proposed in the document. They came up with very radical suggestions including suggesting that a senator’s term should last a period of one year. They further suggested that no person was to be allowed to serve as a senator for more than five years. The federalist didn’t agree with this idea arguing that it would result in creating a senate that is not deliberative enough as they would be afraid of doing against the will of the electorate (Madison, 131).

Another issue that was a hot potato was the issue of foreign influence. The anti-federalists believed that having a central government exposed the wider population to interference from other countries. One of the authors admonished the people that the new constitution will create a national government, which will not have the tentacles needed to abate foreign influence. This he argued would be dangerous for national security and it could even be a causative agent for civil strife and civil war. This same school of thought was propagated by one Philathropos, in a paper he entitled, “Adoption of the Constitution will lead to civil war”. The anti-federalists also raised concerns about the economic security of farmers.

They were concerned that the federal government would excessively impose taxes on the farmers which would leave them impoverished. One of the articles written actually warned people to expect heavy taxation as a means that the new government would use to raise money. The federalists however thought taxation was just one of the ways to raise revenue. They saw the constitution as an opportunity for growth for the common man because of the infrastructure that will be created by the central government. They believed that the stability of the country would greatly influence rapid growth of the country and this would have the trickle down effect to the common man in the street.

On the contrary, the anti-federalists thought exactly the opposite would happen. They agreed that there would be very good opportunities for growth but they were skeptical that it would be beneficial for the citizens of the great. To them, centralization meant that that at the center will benefit from the centralized resources at the expense of those that are at the bottom, they saw in the enlarged power of the government only opportunity and occasion of abuse of the same powers.

The debates by the federalists and the anti-federalists on the new constitution can actually be said to have been a good debate since it resulted into the making of constitution that is considered in many circles as the best in the world. While the different groups were seldom in agreement, the important fact to consider is that both the federalists and the anti-federalists agreed that there needs to be a system to ensure that the problem of tyranny was put in check in a satisfactory manner. The only difference is that the two categories had two different opinions towards this.

Chin, Stern. Oracle Think Quest . 1997. Web.

Madison, John. From Parchment to Power. New York: America Enterprise Institute, 1997.

Storing, Henry and Murray, Dickson. What The Anti-Federalist Were For. University of Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1981.

Wilson, Joseph. The founders constitution: Federal Vs Consolidated Government. 1787. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, December 31). Federalists and Anti-Federalists on Government. https://ivypanda.com/essays/federalists-and-anti-federalists-on-government/

"Federalists and Anti-Federalists on Government." IvyPanda , 31 Dec. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/federalists-and-anti-federalists-on-government/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Federalists and Anti-Federalists on Government'. 31 December.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Federalists and Anti-Federalists on Government." December 31, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/federalists-and-anti-federalists-on-government/.

1. IvyPanda . "Federalists and Anti-Federalists on Government." December 31, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/federalists-and-anti-federalists-on-government/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Federalists and Anti-Federalists on Government." December 31, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/federalists-and-anti-federalists-on-government/.

• Anti-Federalists Movement Ideology
• James Madison and the United States Constitution
• American Constitutional Debates in 1787
• The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists
• The Bill of Rights and the Anti-Federalist Concerns
• Federalists, Anti-federalist, and Republican Debate
• Ratification Process of the Constitution of 1787
• The Framing of the US Constitution
• The US Constitution Ratification Dispute
• Immigration Reform in the United States
• Public Relations and its importance in Modern Society
• Zionism: A Revolution or a Renaissance
• Fear Journals: Chapters 1 & 2, Chapter 3
• English Middle Class and Political Power Formation
• Democratization Theories at the Present Political Map

• EssayBasics.com
• Pay For Essay
• Write My Essay
• Homework Writing Help
• Essay Editing Service
• Thesis Writing Help
• Write My College Essay
• Do My Essay
• Term Paper Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Write My Research Paper
• Assignment Writing Help
• Essay Writing Help
• Call Now! (USA) Login Order now
• EssayBasics.com Call Now! (USA) Order now
• Writing Guides

Federalists Vs Anti Federalists (Essay Sample)

Federalists vs anti federalists.

When America found themselves free from British rule after the revolutionary war, they wanted to establish their system of government where oppression would be eliminated. Initially, the Articles of Confederation connected the people. However, the document did not give the central government power. Therefore, many leaders wanted a national government with powers to enforce laws. A document was created to strengthen the role of the central government and ensure the safety of its people; this was the Constitution. The constitution brought division between two groups, the federalists and the anti federalists. The two groups certain philosophies.

The Constitution caused numerous debates on the future of America and its structure. The anti-federalists have been concerned about the role of the national government and its dominance over citizens.  The Federalist believed in the Constitution while the anti-federalists believed that the constitution was weak and did not protect the rights of the people. The Federalists are strong believers of the Constitution and always insisted that the Constitution is the only legal document to be used to achieve a just society because people rights are protected, the federalists comprises of wealthy people accused of not addressing the concerns of the local people.

The federalist and antifederalist have stood on different ground, the federalists oppose the ideas of anti-federalists who believes that the  Constitution give excessive  power to both the  national government and legislative arms of government reducing the powers of the local people. Anti-Federalist believe that the national government has expansive powers over the state to the extent that the opinion of ordinary people are ignored resulting to the oppression they have been trying to eradicate. For instance, the anti-federalist argue that the Constitution gives powers to the national government to use military force which is not in the interest of the nation but the interest of the certain states. The anti-Federalist has always been dissatisfied with the power of the legislative arm arguing the Congress had too much power. What the anti-federalist have since been fighting for is the Bill of Rights which, according to them, without its inclusion in the constitutions the American people are not protected.

The anti-Federalist felt that state would retain their rights through The Bill of Rights which included freedom of speech, the right to possess arms, right to privacy from search, right from trial by jury, being declared innocent until proven guilty by the court, the right to representation, a speedy trial and no cruel punishment. Anti-Federalists viewed these rights as essential because none of them were exercised under the British rule. Therefore, power would be transferred from the center to the people. Anti-federalist believed that if the Constitution was ratified without including the Bill of Rights, the central government would exercise its strength and deny people the basic rights.

The Federalist viewed the Bill of Rights as unnecessary because the national government needed to operate within the set guidelines that did not elaborate how people were to be protected from oppressive rule. The Federalist view society from a pluralistic perspective compared to the anti-federalist.  Federalists viewed a society not only as one group of people like the anti-federalist; instead, they view society to be dynamic with different interest groups with none of them dominating the system of government. For this reason, the federalists focused on the economic and social changes that were key in transforming the American society.

Even though the American Constitution replaced the article of confederation by expanding the role of the national government the constitution has since been amended but its remains the only law that protects the American people despite the varied views from both the federalist and anti-federalists.

Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist: ALL Essays and Articles in One Edition

Founding fathers' political and philosophical debate, their opinions and arguments about the constitution:, descripción editorial.

This eBook edition of "Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist: ALL Essays and Articles in One Edition" has been formatted to the highest digital standards and adjusted for readability on all devices. Some of the greatest thinkers of the Revolutionary era took part in this extraordinary constitution debate that shaped the America we know today. Read their opinions and arguments on various topics including nature and powers of the Union, need for stronger Union, the judiciary, election organization, defense, taxation and many other subjects in order to understand how this debate influenced our present and shaped the very core of American democracy. The Federalist Papers are a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution. The work of the Founding Fathers who were opposed to or concerned with the merits of the United States Constitution, including Samuel Bryan and Patrick Henry, is collectively named Anti-Federalist.

Más libros de Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Patrick Henry & Samuel Bryan

• Contributors
• Newsletters

1 Trending: RFK Jr. Is Right About Joe Biden

2 trending: side effects of transgender ‘medicine’ show it isn’t just junk science, it’s malpractice, 3 trending: net neutrality could expand biden’s social media censorship to the whole internet, 4 trending: biden has let in almost as many foreigners illegally as ellis island did lawfully in 60 years, biden’s anti-christian easter stunt leaves no doubt about democrats’ descent into paganism.

The modern Democrat Party champions all the pagan impulses of leftism.

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

While millions of Christians throughout the world celebrated the resurrection of Jesus Christ this weekend, the Biden administration was busy hawking the demonic ideology of transgenderism.

On Good Friday, President Joe Biden, who claims to be a “ devout Catholic ,” issued a proclamation declaring March 31, 2024 — the same day as Easter Sunday — to be the “Transgender Day of Visibility.” Because, as everyone knows, we don’t have enough faux holidays commemorating the rainbow mob, right?

“Today, we send a message to all transgender Americans: You are loved. You are heard. You are understood. You belong. You are America, and my entire Administration and I have your back,” Biden wrote.

Like clockwork, White House officials and prominent Democrat politicians celebrated the declaration. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul took her LGBT obsession a step further by issuing her own proclamation dubbing March 31 a “Transgender Day of Visibility” and illuminating 13 state landmarks in so-called “trans colors” in recognition of the made-up holiday.

Biden’s declaration came the same day it was revealed that children were prohibited from submitting Easter egg designs with “religious symbols” for the administration’s 2024 “Celebrating National Guard Families” event. According to the guidelines, submissions “must not include any questionable content, religious symbols, overtly religious themes, or partisan political statements.”

An Anti-Christian Pattern

Make no mistake. The White House was sending a message to faithful Christians across America this Holy Week: Your beliefs are no longer welcomed here.

During his presidency, Biden has effectively declared war on Christianity. From prosecuting peaceful pro-lifers protesting outside abortion facilities to infiltrating and surveilling Catholic churches, he and his administration have gone to extreme lengths to persecute Americans who worship God instead of government.

Recall when a trans-identifying shooter murdered innocent Christians, including children, at a Nashville Christian school last year. It wasn’t the victims’ families or their Christian faith the White House and Democrats uplifted after the horrific attack, but the ( reportedly anti-white) shooter and “transgender community.”

In the weeks following the shooting, Democrats across America’s conquered institutions — from legacy media figures to “Saturday Night Live” — rushed to paint trans-identifying individuals as the victims of transphobic Republicans Why? Because transgenderism is one of the main tenets of Democrats’ pagan faith, meaning any narratives and facts undermining it must be stamped out.

The same worldview underlies the Biden administration’s “Transgender Day of Visibility” stunt, leading the neo-pagans to dismiss and desecrate the holiest day of the Christian calendar.

That’s because Christianity is antithetical to the pagan religion of leftism, which has all its own dogmas, sacraments, rituals, and judgments. Child sacrifice is sacred. Antiracism is a creed. Wrong-sex hormones and mutilative surgeries are the way to (your) truth and life, and neopronouns are regular recitations. Faithful leftists give to the poor by giving to the state. Affirmations of sin are daily expressions of self-worship. “Pride” is a spiritual celebration. And wrongthink is confessed through struggle sessions and punished through cancel culture.

The only religious element the left’s neo-paganism doesn’t offer is grace or hope. And unlike Christians, who worship a God who explicitly claims to be the Truth and thus defines it, leftism disregards the idea of objective truth altogether. That’s why, for example, Democrats insist people can change their sex by simple declaration.

Democrats Embrace Paganism

Without objective truth, however, there is no shared understanding of “right” and “wrong,” leading to the justification of immoral behaviors and actions. We see this with the normalization of pedophilia with terms like “minor-attracted persons.”

Or consider Democrats’ defense of surgically and chemically mutilating healthy bodies beyond repair. Similar to how they justify killing unwanted preborn children — and not only justify but celebrate with campaigns like “shout your abortion” — leftists employ subjective arguments like “my body, my choice.” They contend it’s good and compassionate for people to reject their God-given physical embodiment and remake themselves into their own image. Notice the left’s warped religious appeals — and implications.

My colleague John Daniel Davidson further examines these phenomena in his new book, Pagan America: The Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come . According to Davidson, America’s devolution stems from its embrace of modern secularist ideals and simultaneous abdication of Christianity. He writes :

[T]he radical moral relativism we see everywhere today represents a thoroughly post-Christian worldview that is best understood as the return of paganism, which, as the Romans well understood, is fundamentally incompatible with the Christian faith. Christianity after all does not allow for such relativism but insists on hard definitions of truth and what is — and is not — sacred and divine.

The modern Democrat Party champions all the pagan impulses of leftism. Its members regularly disregard objective truth and morality, all while touting their pain-inducing policies as “kind” and “compassionate” — and there’s no tolerance for beliefs that reject their paganism.

Christians must confront and defeat this unholy takeover of American society. Otherwise, they risk sacrificing what’s left of the country to the evil forces seeking to destroy it.

• Biden White House
• Christianity
• Democrat Party
• spiritual warfare
• Transgender Day of Visibility

More from Culture

Abortion Activists Use Ohio’s Constitutional Amendment To Target Informed Consent Laws, Just As Pro-Lifers Warned They Would

Meta Falsely Links Pro-Parent School Board President To Child Abuse Images

Hozier’s ‘Inferno’-Inspired EP Goes Through Hell And Back But Still Rejects Redemption

Will Calling Someone ‘Fat’ Be A ‘Hate Crime’ Under Scotland’s Dystopian New Law?

Here’s How The Media Are Lying Right Now: Biden ‘Pissed’ Edition

NYT Columnist Writes Off Critiques Of Big Food And Big Pharma As Right-Wing New Ageism

After He Dies In ICE Custody, Democrats Defend Illegal Convicted Of Murder

‘Disinfo’ Guru To Voters: Trust Corporate Media Instead Of ‘Doing Your Own Research’

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