Anti-Federalists

ANTI-FEDERALISTS OPPOSED ratification of the Constitution that emerged from the Philadelphia convention. Some took initial positions against the document, only to support it later as a better option than remaining under the Articles of Confederation. Others opposed it for different reasons—some based on substantive disagreement with certain provisions, and some because its adoption was against the purpose of the convention. There is even argument over the proper form of the name. The form “Antifederalist” makes it seem as though there was a united group making similar arguments and “anti-Federalist” causes them to appear merely opposed to Federalist ideas. “Anti-Federalist” is generally accepted as the least inaccurate representation.

Arguments against ratification took one of two general forms. First, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not have the power to adopt a new form of government. Second, there was opposition to the form of that new government. The Articles of Confederation, [Page 39]the charter under which the government of the United States had operated since declaring independence, was not working well. In subordinating the power and sovereignty of the national government to those of the states, it made the function of the former entirely dependent on the consent of the latter.

This was an insufficient arrangement, and by 1787 the new nation was on the verge of collapse. The purpose of the convention in Philadelphia was to offer amendments to the articles under its terms. James Madison had other ideas, and went into the convention with a plan to replace, rather than amend, the articles. Those Anti-Federalists who opposed the Constitution on these grounds argued that there was a process set forth in the articles for amendment, that the convention was authorized in order to utilize that process, and that to take any other action was illegitimate. However, once the new form of government was proposed and debate began, this argument lost much of its force.

The main thrust was that the proposed Constitution consolidated too much power in the national government at the expense of the states. They viewed the country as a confederation of states independent not only of England, but also of each other. Absent the agreement embodied in the articles, they would have been in Hobbes's state of nature. The consolidation of power in the proposed government, the argument goes, would have been the effective destruction of state sovereignty. In this sense, those known as Anti-Federalist held a more federal view, while those known as Federalists held a more nationalist one.

The national/federal argument begins with a quarrel over the wording of the preamble. The states had authorized the convention, rather than the people. In stating that “We, the people” established the new government, the states were effectively locked out of the process of governance.

This argument seems to overlook the fact that, although the states were nominally sovereign under the articles, they were locked into a “perpetual Union” by the terms of that document's preamble. Lack of ability to quit the union would seem to preclude the complete sovereignty the Anti-Federalists sought. In addition to attachment to the states, part of the opposition to a strong central government stemmed from the arguments of Montesquieu that republics only worked in a small geographic area. Thus, each state might be a successful republic, but the entirety of all the states was too large to function as a whole. The major constitutional provision with which the Anti-Federalists most vehemently disagreed is found in Article I, section 8—the “Necessary and Proper” clause. This clause makes explicit that Congress has the power to make whatever laws it finds “necessary and proper” to exercise the powers granted it by other provisions. Anti-Federalists saw this as too broad a grant of power, and feared that the national government would abuse it at the expense of the states.

...