Search results
Mar 4, 2020 · The words of the Anti- Federalists give us an effective warning about the perils of a government that is no longer accountable to the people. The Federalists, in their response to the Anti- Federalists, show the proper way to maintain those checks against the progress of a government toward tyranny. The Founders’ words still have wisdom today.
- The Constitution's Alleged Deficiencies
- Leaders and Adherents
- Ratification Debate Dynamics
- Legacy
- Bibliography
The Constitution was made public in September 1787 and faced opposition almost immediately. Controversy exists over the primary motivation of the anti-Federalists. Some think they opposed the Constitution primarily for economic reasons. Others argue that they wanted to protect their own political power. Still others find that they were influenced m...
Some of the nation's best-known political leaders were among those who opposed the Constitution. Famed orator Patrick Henry led the anti-Federalists in Virginia, joined by the author of the Virginia declaration of rights, George Mason, who had attended the Constitutional Convention but refused to sign the document. Governor George Clinton organized...
Several practical matters complicated the anti-Federalists' quest to alter or defeat the Constitution. The call to form a convention came from the Federalists. They were interested in making radical changes to the structure of the national government and were highly motivated to attend the Philadelphia Convention. Anti-Federalists wanted less far-r...
Though the Constitution was ratified, the anti-Federalists did not leave the fight empty-handed. They expected that the recommended amendments would be seriously considered even though the push for a second convention failed to have an impact. Yet few anti-Federalists were elected to the new Congress. With massive Federalist majorities in both the ...
Banning, Lance. "Republican Ideology and the Triumph of the Constitution, 1789–1793." William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser., 31 (1974): 167–188. Cornell, Saul. "The Changing Historical Fortunes of the Anti-Federalists." Northwestern University Law Review84 (1989): 39–73. ——. The Other Founders: Anti-Federalists and the Dissenting Tradition in America...
Even Washington had to be made to believe that only he, and no one else, could give the new federal government the legitimacy it needed for all parties to rally behind it. He reluctantly accepted. The other guarantee accepted was a bill of rights to be later ratified in order to secure specific things the new government could not impede.
Aug 8, 2019 · I think the key finding here is that the anti-federalists imagined that sooner or later, there would be a one-way drift of power towards the national government. The residual sources to protect the powers and rights of the states were few. For a variety of reasons, the national government would consolidate all its power.
Sep 27, 2017 · Anti-Federalists in Massachusetts, Virginia and New York, three crucial states, made ratification of the Constitution contingent on a Bill of Rights. In Massachusetts, arguments between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists erupted in a physical brawl between Elbridge Gerry and Francis Dana. Sensing that Anti-Federalist sentiment would sink ...
THE RATIFICATION CAMPAIGN. On the question of ratification, citizens quickly separated into two groups: Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists supported it. They tended to be among the elite members of society—wealthy and well-educated landowners, businessmen, and former military commanders who believed a strong government would be better for both national defense and economic growth.
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 new national government too much power. And that this new government—led by a new group of distant, out-of-touch political elites—would:
