The Federalists vs. the AntiFederalists

It’s 1787, and the United States is a mess. The young nation is deep in debt. The 13 states refuse to work together. And there’s no central leader to do anything about it. 

How did this happen? Blame the first U.S. constitution, called the Articles of Confederation. It gives almost all power to the individual states. The central government is so weak that it can’t even enforce laws. 

But there is still hope. Delegates from the states have gathered at a convention in Pennsylvania to find a solution. Some say the Articles can be fixed. Others want to start over.

After months of debate, they write a new Constitution. It sets up a strong federal government. Using a quill pen, a majority of the men sign it. 

The document can’t take effect, however, unless nine states ratify, or approve, it. Each state will hold its own special convention to decide. 

Quickly, two groups emerge. The Federalists like the new Constitution. The Antifederalists don’t. They think Americans’ freedoms are better protected by state governments. 

Both sides give speeches and publish essays to persuade the states. Turn the page to jump into three of their biggest debates.

It is 1787. The United States is a mess. The young nation is deep in debt. The 13 states refuse to work together. And there is no central leader to do anything about it.

How did this happen? Blame the first U.S. constitution. It is called the Articles of Confederation. It gives almost all power to the individual states. The central government is very weak. It cannot even enforce laws.

But there is still hope. Delegates from the states have gathered at a convention in Pennsylvania. They want to find a solution. Some say the Articles can be fixed. Others want to start over.

They debate it for months. Then they write a new Constitution. It sets up a strong federal government. A majority of the men sign it using a quill pen.

But the document cannot take effect unless nine states ratify, or approve, it. Each state will hold its own special convention to decide.

Soon two groups form. The Federalists like the new Constitution. The Antifederalists do not. They think Americans’ freedoms are better protected by state governments.

Both sides give speeches and publish essays to persuade the states. Turn the page to jump into three of their biggest debates.

This was the main clash between the two groups. Article VI of the Constitution states that federal laws are “the supreme Law of the Land.” This is known as the supremacy clause. If federal and state laws conflict, federal laws win out in most cases.

The Antifederalists argued that Article VI would make the federal government too strong. States should have more control, they said, because they better understand the needs of their citizens. A supreme federal government would “swallow up all the powers of the state governments,” wrote Robert Yates, an Antifederalist from New York. This, he argued, would lead to tyranny, a cruel and unfair form of government in which one person or group has total control over everyone.

But the Federalists insisted the U.S. government needed the authority to force the states to follow laws—otherwise, the country would remain as disorganized as it was under the Articles of Confederation. James Madison, a Federalist from Virginia, wrote, “Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter.” Plus, the Federalists added, any powers not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution would still belong to the states.

This was the main disagreement between the two groups. Article VI of the Constitution says that federal laws are “the supreme Law of the Land.” This is known as the supremacy clause. It says what happens if federal and state laws conflict. In most cases, federal laws win.

The Antifederalists argued that Article VI would make the federal government too strong. They said states should have more control because states understand the needs of their citizens better. Robert Yates was an Antifederalist from New York. He wrote that a supreme federal government would “swallow up all the powers of the state governments.” He argued that this would lead to tyranny. Tyranny is a cruel and unfair form of government in which one person or group has total control over everyone.

But the Federalists argued that the U.S. government needed the authority to force the states to follow laws. Otherwise, the country would stay as disorganized as it was under the Articles of Confederation. James Madison was a Federalist from Virginia. He wrote, “Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter.” The Federalists added that any powers not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution would still belong to the states.

The Constitution splits the government into three parts: executive, legislative, and judicial. The executive branch is led by the president. To the Antifederalists, this sounded a lot like the monarchy America had just left behind in Great Britain. They feared that “president” actually meant “elected king.” 

Antifederalist Patrick Henry of Virginia argued that a president could misuse the military to stay in power. “What have you to oppose this force?” he asked voters in his state. “What will then become of you and your rights?” 

Some Antifederalists pushed for an executive council made up of a few people instead.

The Federalists countered that a powerful president would enforce laws and keep the country safe from foreign attacks. Plus, a single leader would be easier to hold accountable than a group, which could “conceal faults and destroy responsibility,” wrote Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist from New York.

The Constitution splits the government into three parts: executive, legislative, and judicial. The president leads the executive branch. The Antifederalists thought this sounded a lot like the monarchy America had just left behind in Great Britain. They feared that “president” really meant “elected king.”

Patrick Henry of Virginia was an Antifederalist. He argued that a president could misuse the military to stay in power. “What have you to oppose this force?” he asked voters in his state. “What will then become of you and your rights?”

Some Antifederalists wanted an executive council made up of a few people instead of a president.

But the Federalists argued that a powerful president would enforce laws and keep the country safe from foreign attacks. And a single leader would be easier to hold accountable than a group. A group could “conceal faults and destroy responsibility,” wrote Alexander Hamilton. He was a Federalist from New York.

In the final days of the 1787 convention—now known as the Constitutional Convention—an Antifederalist from Virginia named George Mason suggested adding a Bill of Rights. Listing Americans’ individual freedoms would help reassure people who were concerned about a strong federal government, he said. 

The other delegates rejected Mason’s idea. But he had foreseen a major complaint about the Constitution. He and other Antifederalists believed people’s personal rights—such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press—needed to be spelled out in order to safeguard them. 

A Bill of Rights, they said, would help protect individual citizens from the government. 

The Federalists, however, felt that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. The Constitution didn’t grant the government control over the press or speech or religion, they said. So why did they need another document protecting those rights? They also worried that listing all of people’s individual freedoms was impossible. If they forgot one, what then?

That 1787 convention is now known as the Constitutional Convention. In its final days, George Mason suggested adding a Bill of Rights. Mason was an Antifederalist from Virginia. He said listing Americans’ individual freedoms would reassure people who were concerned about a strong federal government.

The other delegates rejected the idea. But Mason had predicted a major complaint about the Constitution. He and other Antifederalists believed that people’s personal rights needed to be spelled out in order to protect them. Such rights include freedom of speech, religion, and the press. They thought a Bill of Rights would help protect individual citizens from the government.

But the Federalists felt that a Bill of Rights was not needed. They said the Constitution did not grant the government control over the press or speech or religion. So why did they need another document protecting those rights? They also worried that listing all of people’s individual freedoms was impossible. What if they forgot one?