What do you think?
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
About the author
Herbert J. Storing
13 books2 followersHe served in the United States Army from 1946 to 1948, and received
his A.B. degree from Colgate University in 1950. He then attended the University of Chicago, earning his A.M. in 1951 and Ph.D. in 1956. He was a Fulbright Scholar to the United Kingdom from 1953 to 1955 and also received research grants from the Rockefeller, Ford, and Relm Foundations and from the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Storing served as senior research assistant at the London School of Economics; as assistant, associate, and professor of political science
at the University of Chicago (1956–77); and
as director of the Telluride summer program at the Hampton Institute in 1967. He was Visiting Charles Evans Hughes Professor of
Jurisprudence at Colgate University from 1968 to 1969, and part-time professor of political science at Northern Illinois University from 1969 to 1975.
At the time of his death in September 1977, Storing was Robert Kent Gooch Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia, where he also served as director of the Study of the Presidency at the White Burkett Miller Center for Public Affairs. He was also a member of the President’s Commission on White House Fellows.
He is coauthor of The State and the Farmer; editor and contributor to Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics; editor of What Country Have I? Political Writings by Black Americans; editor of the seven-volume The Complete Anti-Federalist; author of What the Anti-Federalists Were For; and author of numerous essays on the American Founding, constitutional law, public administration, American political thought, and the American presidency.
his A.B. degree from Colgate University in 1950. He then attended the University of Chicago, earning his A.M. in 1951 and Ph.D. in 1956. He was a Fulbright Scholar to the United Kingdom from 1953 to 1955 and also received research grants from the Rockefeller, Ford, and Relm Foundations and from the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Storing served as senior research assistant at the London School of Economics; as assistant, associate, and professor of political science
at the University of Chicago (1956–77); and
as director of the Telluride summer program at the Hampton Institute in 1967. He was Visiting Charles Evans Hughes Professor of
Jurisprudence at Colgate University from 1968 to 1969, and part-time professor of political science at Northern Illinois University from 1969 to 1975.
At the time of his death in September 1977, Storing was Robert Kent Gooch Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia, where he also served as director of the Study of the Presidency at the White Burkett Miller Center for Public Affairs. He was also a member of the President’s Commission on White House Fellows.
He is coauthor of The State and the Farmer; editor and contributor to Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics; editor of What Country Have I? Political Writings by Black Americans; editor of the seven-volume The Complete Anti-Federalist; author of What the Anti-Federalists Were For; and author of numerous essays on the American Founding, constitutional law, public administration, American political thought, and the American presidency.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
April 28, 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.
May 23, 2026
The people arguing against adoption of the Constitution were a mixed lot, and they had a range of reasons for opposing it.
They were rightly cheesed off about the switcheroo terminology game: if you look at the Articles of Confederation… it’s got “Federal” right in the name, and the dictionary definition of “Federation” means pretty much what was enacted by the Articles.
Then along comes Hamilton and Madison with the Federalist Papers, making the notion of “Federalism” mean something else entirely: strong central government and a subsumption of the State governments into it.
The Anti-Federalists didn’t waste a lot of time on the losing battle with semantics. Some of them were upset that the Constitution didn’t specifically protect the Christian Protestant religion. Some of them were profoundly certain that the Constitutions definition of the Executive branch was a recipe for monarchism and tyranny. Some of them argued on theoretical grounds that a pan-State polity could not be united and that only small States could embody Democracy and liberty.
Some of them were concerned that the Judiciary would be dangerous, since unelected judges could effectively say what the law was, and override the will of the elected representatives. Hah. Obviously, those people were totally, totally wrong about that.
This is a good, quick readout of the other side of the argument from the Federalist Papers. It doesn’t really address if or how those arguments were wrong, but then, we have the Federalist Papers for that, and subsequent history.
They were rightly cheesed off about the switcheroo terminology game: if you look at the Articles of Confederation… it’s got “Federal” right in the name, and the dictionary definition of “Federation” means pretty much what was enacted by the Articles.
Then along comes Hamilton and Madison with the Federalist Papers, making the notion of “Federalism” mean something else entirely: strong central government and a subsumption of the State governments into it.
The Anti-Federalists didn’t waste a lot of time on the losing battle with semantics. Some of them were upset that the Constitution didn’t specifically protect the Christian Protestant religion. Some of them were profoundly certain that the Constitutions definition of the Executive branch was a recipe for monarchism and tyranny. Some of them argued on theoretical grounds that a pan-State polity could not be united and that only small States could embody Democracy and liberty.
Some of them were concerned that the Judiciary would be dangerous, since unelected judges could effectively say what the law was, and override the will of the elected representatives. Hah. Obviously, those people were totally, totally wrong about that.
This is a good, quick readout of the other side of the argument from the Federalist Papers. It doesn’t really address if or how those arguments were wrong, but then, we have the Federalist Papers for that, and subsequent history.
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.
July 17, 2026
A really good short introduction to the debates around the Constitution. Very timely as the Federalists and Anti-Federalists debated many of the issues around the powers of the government and the balance between the branches that are being discussed today.
"“The sole intention of [the separation] is to produce wise and mature deliberation. Experience teaches us that individuals or simple bodies of men are liable to rash and hasty decisions—to party influence and cabal—that we are generally fond of what originates with ourselves—and that another person of no greater ability than ourselves, will easily discern a blemish in our productions to which we are blind until it be pointed out.”"
"“The sole intention of [the separation] is to produce wise and mature deliberation. Experience teaches us that individuals or simple bodies of men are liable to rash and hasty decisions—to party influence and cabal—that we are generally fond of what originates with ourselves—and that another person of no greater ability than ourselves, will easily discern a blemish in our productions to which we are blind until it be pointed out.”"
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.
July 23, 2024
THE INTRODUCTION TO STORING'S SEVEN-VOLUME COLLECTION OF WRITINGS
Herbert J. Storing (1928-1977) was a professor of Constitutional History and Law at the University of Virginia. This book is the Introduction to his 1977 complete seven-volume set of letters, pamphlets, and speeches in 'The Complete Anti-Federalist.' An abridgement of this set is also available: 'The Anti-Federalist: An Abridgment of The Complete Anti-Federalist.;
He begins by noting, "One of the striking and, to many readers, surprising aspects of the debate over the Constitution is the conservative posture of the opposition. The Anti-Federalists did not deny the need for some change, but they were on the whole defenders of the status quo." (Pg. 7) He adds, "Federalism means that the states are primary... The defense of the federal character of the American union was the most promising article of Anti-Federalist conservative doctrine." (Pg. 9) They opposed "the tendency to establish one complete national government, which would destroy or undermine the states." (Pg. 10)
He notes that the framers of the constitution made a strong argument for government to guard the safety of the community, and argues, "It is an argument that is almost sufficient to justify the Constitution; and it was in fact the main argument of many of the Federalist leaders and writers. Many of the Anti-Federalists simply could not meet it..." (Pg. 29)
Storing points out, however, that "the Anti-Federalists WERE typically more democratic than the Federalists, in the specific sense that they were less likely to see majority faction as the most dangerous and likely evil of popular government. They were inclined to think... that harm is more often done by the tyranny of the rulers than by the licentiousness of the people." (Pg. 40) They saw "the chief danger as the inherently aristocratic character of any government." (Pg. 48) He says in summary, "While the Federalists gave us the Constitution, then, the legacy of the Anti-Federalists was the Bill of Rights." (Pg. 65)
This short book is an excellent introduction to the ideas of the Anti-Federalists.
Herbert J. Storing (1928-1977) was a professor of Constitutional History and Law at the University of Virginia. This book is the Introduction to his 1977 complete seven-volume set of letters, pamphlets, and speeches in 'The Complete Anti-Federalist.' An abridgement of this set is also available: 'The Anti-Federalist: An Abridgment of The Complete Anti-Federalist.;
He begins by noting, "One of the striking and, to many readers, surprising aspects of the debate over the Constitution is the conservative posture of the opposition. The Anti-Federalists did not deny the need for some change, but they were on the whole defenders of the status quo." (Pg. 7) He adds, "Federalism means that the states are primary... The defense of the federal character of the American union was the most promising article of Anti-Federalist conservative doctrine." (Pg. 9) They opposed "the tendency to establish one complete national government, which would destroy or undermine the states." (Pg. 10)
He notes that the framers of the constitution made a strong argument for government to guard the safety of the community, and argues, "It is an argument that is almost sufficient to justify the Constitution; and it was in fact the main argument of many of the Federalist leaders and writers. Many of the Anti-Federalists simply could not meet it..." (Pg. 29)
Storing points out, however, that "the Anti-Federalists WERE typically more democratic than the Federalists, in the specific sense that they were less likely to see majority faction as the most dangerous and likely evil of popular government. They were inclined to think... that harm is more often done by the tyranny of the rulers than by the licentiousness of the people." (Pg. 40) They saw "the chief danger as the inherently aristocratic character of any government." (Pg. 48) He says in summary, "While the Federalists gave us the Constitution, then, the legacy of the Anti-Federalists was the Bill of Rights." (Pg. 65)
This short book is an excellent introduction to the ideas of the Anti-Federalists.
April 17, 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 3, 2011
Too academic in nature for a quick read. However, I appreciated the evaluation of the anti-federalist arguments.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews