What do you think?
Rate this book
What the Anti-Federalists Were for: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution
The Anti-Federalists, in Herbert J. Storing's view, are somewhat paradoxically entitled to be counted among the Founding Fathers and to share in the honor and study devoted to the founding. "If the foundations of the American polity was laid by the Federalists," he writes, "the Anti-Federalist reservations echo through American history; and it is in the dialogue, not merely in the Federalist victory, that the country's principles are to be discovered." It was largely through their efforts, he reminds us, that the Constitution was so quickly amended to include a bill of rights.
Storing here offers a brilliant introduction to the thought and principles of the Anti-Federalists as they were understood by themselves and by other men and women of their time. His comprehensive exposition restores to our understanding the Anti-Federalist share in the founding its effect on some of the enduring themes and tensions of American political life. The concern with big government and infringement of personal liberty one finds in the writings of these neglected Founders strikes a remarkably timely note.
Storing here offers a brilliant introduction to the thought and principles of the Anti-Federalists as they were understood by themselves and by other men and women of their time. His comprehensive exposition restores to our understanding the Anti-Federalist share in the founding its effect on some of the enduring themes and tensions of American political life. The concern with big government and infringement of personal liberty one finds in the writings of these neglected Founders strikes a remarkably timely note.
120 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1981
32 people are currently reading
167 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
May 11, 2009
I loved this book. I find it endlessly fascinating how little our political dialogue has changed since our country’s founding. The issues my change but the fundamental debates on how to move forward, deal with issues, and how power is allotted are still the same. I studied the Anti-Federalists in college but it was so much more interesting to read about them now given our current political landscape.
August 1, 2022
Herbert J. Storing's essay "What the Anti Federalists were for" illuminates the thought of the Anti-Federalists in a manner which seeks to understand these men as they understood themselves. This book is not simply an important contribution to historical understanding, it also demonstrates a nuanced cognizance of the continued relevance of the Anti-Federalist teaching. Mr. Storing notes the paradoxical nature of the Federalist- Anti- Federalist debate, particularly with respect to questions of sovereignty. Federalism as it is now understood emphasizes the central authority of the union, while Anti-Federalists are now viewed as advocates of divided sovereignty between states on the one hand, and an overbearing central government on the other. This terminological usurpation along with the extralegal nature of the Constitutional Convention rankled Anti-Federalist thinkers. The Anti-Federalists were more than defenders of states rights. The Federalists advocated the concentration of greater power in the hands of a central government and complex checks and balances; contrariwise, the Anti-Federalists supported responsible government based on republican virtue.
Storing is right to note that we owe our Bill of Rights to the Anti-Federalists, and he importantly demonstrates the sophistry of Federalists such as James Wilson who insisted that the Constitution only entailed powers clearly delineated, hence obviating any need to amend the document. A short consideration of the "necessary and proper" clause, or the "commerce" clause is here instructive.
A very important book when viewed through the prism of our current political debates.
Storing is right to note that we owe our Bill of Rights to the Anti-Federalists, and he importantly demonstrates the sophistry of Federalists such as James Wilson who insisted that the Constitution only entailed powers clearly delineated, hence obviating any need to amend the document. A short consideration of the "necessary and proper" clause, or the "commerce" clause is here instructive.
A very important book when viewed through the prism of our current political debates.
May 16, 2022
I give very few books five starts, but this one, for it's clarity and brevity, deserves every star I've given it. It's a shame that it's no longer in print. This book should be used as a companion to teaching the history of the U.S. constitution. It really elevates my esteem for the generation of founders that left us with such an amazing document of governance, it's worth proven by time. I've read Dahl's How Democratic is the American Constitution and I can say confidently that Storing's book is far more valuable a read.
April 11, 2021
Unlikely to find time to read the anti-federalist documents so this introduction going through crucial details of the debate was great for my needs.
February 28, 2010
Really more of a long-ish essay than a book (~70 pages)--it was originally written as the opening to the multi-volume edition of the Anti-Federalist Papers. It is succinct and interesting review of Anti-Federalist thought. Worth a read for anyone interesting in the founding of the US/the proto-party system that started to emerge around the question of the Philadelphia convention and the ratification of the Constitution.
September 15, 2024
Storing provides a quick and useful overview of Anti-Federalist thought (this essay was the introduction to his collection of Anti-Federal writings). He emphasizes that, in the initial stages of opposition to the Constitution, AFs argued that the convention’s shift from amending to replacing the Articles was a usurpation and a betrayal. One theme they would repeatedly come back to was that the constitution betrayed the revolution by establishing a strong national government at the expense of the states.
As the constitution came to be debated, this argument failed, and the AFs needed to produce better reasons for opposition. They emphasized the importance of virtue in politics, and argued that virtue and government would be at their height in small, homogenous republics like the states. Federalists meanwhile stressed self-interest as their motor for the new system - the constitution would divide and balance power by pitting jealousies and avarice against each other, triumphing by embracing faction.
In the debate over the constitution, they increasingly embraced a “new federalism” which emphasized different spheres for the state and national government. Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists stressed this aspect, but Feds emphasized the primacy of the national government whereas AFs stressed a divided sovereignty.
The Anti-Federalists lost, Storing writes, because they had the weaker argument - they attempted to reconcile too many contradictions, to rely on virtue at the expense of self-interest. But they succeeded in their efforts to get a bill of rights appended, which altered the character of the constitution as a whole by identifying many of the fundamental liberties which the government had been created to secure.
Perhaps the Anti-Federalists are due for a renaissance. Decades of neoliberal governance have suggested the pitfalls of a system driven solely by self-interest. Further, the federalist achievement in crafting a new national government notwithstanding, the sociopolitical assumptions on which the constitution was based - particularly practices surrounding elections - are so outdated that the elements of the constitution feel almost quaint. The Bill of Rights, perhaps coupled with the reconstruction amendments, represent perhaps the best of the document, and we owe them to its critics rather than its proponents.
As the constitution came to be debated, this argument failed, and the AFs needed to produce better reasons for opposition. They emphasized the importance of virtue in politics, and argued that virtue and government would be at their height in small, homogenous republics like the states. Federalists meanwhile stressed self-interest as their motor for the new system - the constitution would divide and balance power by pitting jealousies and avarice against each other, triumphing by embracing faction.
In the debate over the constitution, they increasingly embraced a “new federalism” which emphasized different spheres for the state and national government. Both Federalists and Anti-Federalists stressed this aspect, but Feds emphasized the primacy of the national government whereas AFs stressed a divided sovereignty.
The Anti-Federalists lost, Storing writes, because they had the weaker argument - they attempted to reconcile too many contradictions, to rely on virtue at the expense of self-interest. But they succeeded in their efforts to get a bill of rights appended, which altered the character of the constitution as a whole by identifying many of the fundamental liberties which the government had been created to secure.
Perhaps the Anti-Federalists are due for a renaissance. Decades of neoliberal governance have suggested the pitfalls of a system driven solely by self-interest. Further, the federalist achievement in crafting a new national government notwithstanding, the sociopolitical assumptions on which the constitution was based - particularly practices surrounding elections - are so outdated that the elements of the constitution feel almost quaint. The Bill of Rights, perhaps coupled with the reconstruction amendments, represent perhaps the best of the document, and we owe them to its critics rather than its proponents.
July 15, 2018
This book—which I had left over from a class I took in college but had never read—is a short summary of the arguments made in 1787 against the US Constitution. It purports to cast these arguments in a positive light; i.e., not that the anti-federalists merely opposed the constitution, but that they supported some alternative scheme of government instead. But, there really does seem to have been a lack of clarity and unity in the anti-federalist position that makes this hard to do.
The greatest merit of this book is that it gives us a chance to go back and revisit, in brief, some of the central questions of American government. The Federalist Papers are probably the best place to go for this; although, here, the counterargument is made explicit.
The greatest merit of this book is that it gives us a chance to go back and revisit, in brief, some of the central questions of American government. The Federalist Papers are probably the best place to go for this; although, here, the counterargument is made explicit.
October 19, 2020
Dry at times, but overall a good, educational read. We know what the Federalists stood for; a strong federal government, ratification of the Constitution, among other things. We rarely hear what the opposition stood for. The Anti-Federalists had valid concerns and points of contention. This book is not long, not a difficult read, and identifies those clearly.
July 21, 2020
A good short overview of Anti-Federalist arguments and concerns.
September 14, 2025
Good and fair treatment of a losing side.
April 28, 2011
Today's students are always surprised reading Storing's short intro to the Anti-Federalists because they discover that, if they had been alive at the time of the Constitutional debates, they might well have been anti-federalists!
October 7, 2011
Too academic in nature for a quick read. However, I appreciated the evaluation of the anti-federalist arguments.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews