What do you think?
Rate this book
The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781-1788
In this examination of the philosophical attitudes and political activity of the opponents of the adoption of the Constitution, Dr. Main rescues the Antifederalists from oblivion. His perceptive account of the ratifying conventions, the local circumstances that affected decisions, the alignment of delegates, and the factors that operated to make some of the delegates change their minds is a vigorous counterstatement to revisionist studies of the Constitutional debate.
308 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1961
6 people are currently reading
97 people want to read
About the author
Jackson Turner Main
15 books2 followersAn historian of colonial America and the early republic, Jackson Turner Main earned his BA and Ph.D. at the University of Wisconsin. He was a professor of history at the University of Colorado, and the author of seven books on the colonial era and early American republic.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
June 11, 2018
This book is not for the faint of heart! It's very dense and more often than not the main ideas get bogged down in details. It's also extremely well researched and the author clearly knows what he's talking about. The middle chapters were very interesting. This is a very informative book, and has a lot of information about the anti-federalists that is important to know.
Basically, our country is a lie. The promise of the revolution was already lost when the Constitution was written. While some federalists were genuinely well-intentioned, many were greedy, selfish, and elitist. The anti-federalists could see the abuses that would happen under the Constitution. If you could bring the anti-federalists to the present day, and tell them about all the current abuses of the federal government, they would say "I told you so."
The ideas in this book are really important to know, and very few people seem to know them. Unfortunately this book is likely only going to be read by very determined readers.
Basically, our country is a lie. The promise of the revolution was already lost when the Constitution was written. While some federalists were genuinely well-intentioned, many were greedy, selfish, and elitist. The anti-federalists could see the abuses that would happen under the Constitution. If you could bring the anti-federalists to the present day, and tell them about all the current abuses of the federal government, they would say "I told you so."
The ideas in this book are really important to know, and very few people seem to know them. Unfortunately this book is likely only going to be read by very determined readers.
March 13, 2011
I have read the original version of this book. In that, Main developed an interpretation of what factors shaped support for (and opposition to) the Constitution. He contends that commercial interests embraced it, because it promised to advance that interest. People who lived away from commercial areas (including those who lived along navigable streams and could partake of commerce) tended to oppose the Constitution--and were also more apt to be affected by English radical Whigs, critics of the strong English government. Also, Main acknowledged that there were sometimes unique features to a state beyond commercial intrerests that helped affect the outcome of the ratification struggle.
This remains one of my favorite works on the Constitutional debate, even though the original version is some fifty years old.
This remains one of my favorite works on the Constitutional debate, even though the original version is some fifty years old.
December 4, 2017
The book is an instant classic. It is more comprehensive than the earlier work by Dr. Beard. His theories make sense. In many states, the commercial issues swayed delegates to vote for the Constitution. In other states there were regional issues. His work is well reseqarched and a definitive work on the ratification of the Constitution.
June 27, 2014
The men that came to be known as the Antifederalists feared the consequences of so much power being handed to the few elite members of society in the form of the Constitution. They believed that “in order to guard against the tyranny of power and preserve popular rule, the men entrusted with power had to be kept responsive to public opinion (11)”. The more power they had, the further they were from oversight of the populace. In his introduction to Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution 1781-1788, Jackson Turner Main makes it quite clear that the title of Antifederalist was hoisted upon the men that opposed the Constitution by their opponents, but they were not by any stretch of the imagination antifederal. They were men that wanted to protect the confederation from what they saw as the destructive lust for power. Main sheds light on the true nature of the antifederalists and their hostility toward the constitution by examining the the social structures that were in place, political ideas and conditions within each state, and earlier attempts at revision to the Articles of Confederation.
Main begins with the social and political background of the confederation prior to the constitutional conventions. The class structures present during the revolutionary period incuded “the well-born, the middle, and the lower ‘ranks’” (3). The main difference between the middle and the lower class had to do with property ownership. The middle had property and the lower class did not. The middle class was representative of antifederalist thought, while most federalists belonged to the upper or well-born class. Those in the middle class included farmers who became indebted to those in the upper classes. The farmers debts motivated them to become interested in what was going on politically, specifically with tax policy and the payment of state debts.
Jackson Turner Main gives an overview of what was happening in each member of the confederation of states during this period. Sectional divisions pitted the wealthier farmers interests against those of the smaller farmers, who did not receive adequate representation in the lower house and were practically exluded from represenation in the upper house of the state legislatures. Anti-federalism grew out of these divisional conflicts with the poorer farmers usually siding with Antifederalists and the rich or commerical interests siding with the Federalists.
Prior to Jackson Turner Main’s treatment of the Antifederalists, they were generally treated as trivial naysayers. Their impact on American History was considered minimal. Main took up the cause of the Antifederalists and provided them with a substantial voice. His work is considered landmark by historians for his indepth analysis of the Antifederalist position in the ratification of the Constitution (http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/page/517).
The author’s writing style is straighforward, giving the social and political background that influenced the Antifederal position. In writing from an Antifederal perspective Jackson Turner Main presents the Antifederal argument against the perceived concern that some wanted to create an aristocracy similar to that of Great Britain. “The Antifederalists were well aware that there were in all of the states many men who wanted to change the form of government (104)”. Main argues the antifederalist position that a strong national government was a very real threat to personal liberty quite adeptly.
While main presents the Federalist position, his main objective is clearly to present the virtues of Antifederalist thought, not necessarily to present a fair representation of Federalist ideals. While it may be true that the Antifederalists were the underdogs in this fight, the Federalists had legitimate arguments for abandoning the Article of Confederation in favor of a new, more centralized government in the form of the Contsitution. While Main included plenty of source material related to Antifederalist thought, the Federalist position lacks the same consideration. Although the Federalist positions is not fully developed, one does not get the sense that Main is trying to intentionally argue against them. Rather he is simply presenting a more balanced presentation of Antifederal thought, inclining the author toward a more biased Antifederalist position.
The work has extensive footnote citations to primary and secondary source material, with several appendices in addition to a historical and bibliographical essay on Antifederal thought. The Appendices include authorship of important Antifederal thought, the ratification process, a listing of Antifederalists and Federalists by occupation, and socio-econonomic divisions for the state of Maryland. While Main’s work will appeal mainly to American Historians, his text is not overly complex and may appeal to amateur as well as professional historians. He gives a fairly extensive play by play of Antifederalist versus Federalist politics in most of the thirteen colonies. While the information is valuable to the historian, the general reader may find it monotonous. He holds the reader’s interest best when he focuses on the personal stories and interactions of the rich and poor in American society, but these are kept to a minimum to provide the historian with the extensive data needed to gain a full picture of Antifederal thought.
Main begins with the social and political background of the confederation prior to the constitutional conventions. The class structures present during the revolutionary period incuded “the well-born, the middle, and the lower ‘ranks’” (3). The main difference between the middle and the lower class had to do with property ownership. The middle had property and the lower class did not. The middle class was representative of antifederalist thought, while most federalists belonged to the upper or well-born class. Those in the middle class included farmers who became indebted to those in the upper classes. The farmers debts motivated them to become interested in what was going on politically, specifically with tax policy and the payment of state debts.
Jackson Turner Main gives an overview of what was happening in each member of the confederation of states during this period. Sectional divisions pitted the wealthier farmers interests against those of the smaller farmers, who did not receive adequate representation in the lower house and were practically exluded from represenation in the upper house of the state legislatures. Anti-federalism grew out of these divisional conflicts with the poorer farmers usually siding with Antifederalists and the rich or commerical interests siding with the Federalists.
Prior to Jackson Turner Main’s treatment of the Antifederalists, they were generally treated as trivial naysayers. Their impact on American History was considered minimal. Main took up the cause of the Antifederalists and provided them with a substantial voice. His work is considered landmark by historians for his indepth analysis of the Antifederalist position in the ratification of the Constitution (http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/page/517).
The author’s writing style is straighforward, giving the social and political background that influenced the Antifederal position. In writing from an Antifederal perspective Jackson Turner Main presents the Antifederal argument against the perceived concern that some wanted to create an aristocracy similar to that of Great Britain. “The Antifederalists were well aware that there were in all of the states many men who wanted to change the form of government (104)”. Main argues the antifederalist position that a strong national government was a very real threat to personal liberty quite adeptly.
While main presents the Federalist position, his main objective is clearly to present the virtues of Antifederalist thought, not necessarily to present a fair representation of Federalist ideals. While it may be true that the Antifederalists were the underdogs in this fight, the Federalists had legitimate arguments for abandoning the Article of Confederation in favor of a new, more centralized government in the form of the Contsitution. While Main included plenty of source material related to Antifederalist thought, the Federalist position lacks the same consideration. Although the Federalist positions is not fully developed, one does not get the sense that Main is trying to intentionally argue against them. Rather he is simply presenting a more balanced presentation of Antifederal thought, inclining the author toward a more biased Antifederalist position.
The work has extensive footnote citations to primary and secondary source material, with several appendices in addition to a historical and bibliographical essay on Antifederal thought. The Appendices include authorship of important Antifederal thought, the ratification process, a listing of Antifederalists and Federalists by occupation, and socio-econonomic divisions for the state of Maryland. While Main’s work will appeal mainly to American Historians, his text is not overly complex and may appeal to amateur as well as professional historians. He gives a fairly extensive play by play of Antifederalist versus Federalist politics in most of the thirteen colonies. While the information is valuable to the historian, the general reader may find it monotonous. He holds the reader’s interest best when he focuses on the personal stories and interactions of the rich and poor in American society, but these are kept to a minimum to provide the historian with the extensive data needed to gain a full picture of Antifederal thought.
July 23, 2024
WHO WERE THE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?
Jackson Turner Main (d. 2003; he was the grandson of historian Frederick Jackson Turner) was a professor of history at SUNY at Stony Brook. This 1961 book was the initial winner of the Jamestown Prize.
He wrote in the Preface, "The present volume is therefore intended only to fill a gap, not to furnish a complete account of post-Revolutionary politics. In order to identify the Antifederalists and to discover what they thought, it was necessary to examine in the various states the political controversies that culminated in the conflict over ratification."
He observes, "The Antifederalsts... believed that if the government were truly to represent the people, the principal power should rest in the popular branch... Many Antifederalists also wished to reduce the high property qualifications for holding office." (Pg. 13)
He notes, "This conviction ... that attempts had been and would be made to establish an aristocracy... became a fundamental assumption of the Antifederalists." (Pg. 104) He adds that they believed that "the Constitution established a national, not a federal, government... a transference of sovereignty in which the states, once sovereign, would retain but a shadow of their former power." (Pg. 120)
He argues, "Today democracy is a sacred word, but in the Revolutionary era it aroused different emotions in different individuals. Rarely indeed did any nationalist, any Federalist, refer to it approvingly." (Pg. 171) He concludes with the observation, "It will never be known whether a majority of the voters---to say nothing of all the people---opposed ratification." (Pg. 249)
This is a fascinating and very illuminating analysis of the underreported aspect of American history.
Jackson Turner Main (d. 2003; he was the grandson of historian Frederick Jackson Turner) was a professor of history at SUNY at Stony Brook. This 1961 book was the initial winner of the Jamestown Prize.
He wrote in the Preface, "The present volume is therefore intended only to fill a gap, not to furnish a complete account of post-Revolutionary politics. In order to identify the Antifederalists and to discover what they thought, it was necessary to examine in the various states the political controversies that culminated in the conflict over ratification."
He observes, "The Antifederalsts... believed that if the government were truly to represent the people, the principal power should rest in the popular branch... Many Antifederalists also wished to reduce the high property qualifications for holding office." (Pg. 13)
He notes, "This conviction ... that attempts had been and would be made to establish an aristocracy... became a fundamental assumption of the Antifederalists." (Pg. 104) He adds that they believed that "the Constitution established a national, not a federal, government... a transference of sovereignty in which the states, once sovereign, would retain but a shadow of their former power." (Pg. 120)
He argues, "Today democracy is a sacred word, but in the Revolutionary era it aroused different emotions in different individuals. Rarely indeed did any nationalist, any Federalist, refer to it approvingly." (Pg. 171) He concludes with the observation, "It will never be known whether a majority of the voters---to say nothing of all the people---opposed ratification." (Pg. 249)
This is a fascinating and very illuminating analysis of the underreported aspect of American history.
August 7, 2025
Really useful book if you are teaching/researching hte politics of the Founding Era! Abbreviated review today because we are moving, but I'll say quickly that Main aptly explores the class dimensions of the split between the anti-Feds and Feds, particularly the core divide of commercial and non-commercial segments of American society. He delves into their ideas and critiques of the Constitution as well, including their ultimate failure to prevent ratification. At times things get a little wonky (there's A LOT on debt and currency issues, which are important but dry), but this book greatly added to my understanding of the Founding period.
March 1, 2025
On the one hand there was interesting info about the partitioning of sentiment for and against a strong central government in the various states and the voting leading up to and the ratification of the constitution, the book turned into a recitation over and over of details around the pattern "the more rural counties in states generally were anti-federalist, and the more populous city and commercial areas like on the coasts were pro-federal".
May 7, 2017
Although a little too academic for this layman, it was throughly documented. It's major points were well made if done too repetitively. I encourage those interested in the period and those looking at today's political clashes to read and reflect on the similarities to today.
January 28, 2015
Besides an overall description of Antifederalist thought, this contains a detailed state-by-state description of the conflicts between Federalists and Antifederalists over the ratification of the Constitution. It also includes the same type of description of the precursors to Federalist/Antifederalists divisions: conflicts over an impost tax, commutation, and paper money.
The divisions between the two factions are usually described here in economic terms.
To simplify quite a bit, Federalist representatives and their constituency were both wealthier and from commercial (“mercantile”) areas, or areas with large landowners and slaveholders. Antifederalist representatives and their constituency were poorer and from agricultural areas with smaller farms, which tended to be in debt. There was also a division between other debtors and creditors. Between states, there were different interests depending on whether a state was more of an importer or exporter.
Georgia also supported a stronger central government because it believed it would give them an advantage in conflicts with Native Americans. A similar situation existed in Western Virginia.
Main summarizes historians’ theories of the political split: the sectional hypothesis, class antagonisms, “or lack of vision, age, or religion.” He emphatically rejects the age of delegates as a factor. He also finds no meaningful pattern among the various Protestant sects.
As mentioned about, he considered class divisions as an important factor. People at the time described the conflict in these terms. Main writes: “a considerable number of Federalists did not approve of the upsurge of the democracy and praised the Constitution as a check on popular majorities.” Antifederalists, in turn, and the states they were stronger in, were more democratic, although Main writes that even Antifederalist leaders stated views that were somewhat less democratic than their constituencies.
Main notes, however, that merchants ( including “mechanicks”) of any economic class were very likely to be supportive of ratification. Cities and towns, where they were located, were also Federalist strongholds, as were surrounding rural areas that were directly connected to them commercially.
Federalists gained an advantage by being better organized in the distribution of their arguments to newspapers, doing it sooner and more widely. Newspapers, centered in commercial areas, were usually pro-Federalist anyway. Federalists also had more well-known political leaders on their side. Another problem for the Antifederalists was that there was near-universal agreement that the federal government needed to be strengthened in some way, and they failed to present an alternative.
However, he concludes that without the promise of amendments the Constitution would not have been ratified.
Main concludes also, that, “It will never be known whether a majority of the voters - to say nothing of all the people – opposed ratification” There is no way to know with certainty whether delegates reflected public opinion. The Constitution itself, of course, was written in secret. They considered themselves trustees in the sense it is used today, someone who has “autonomy to deliberate and act in favor of the greater common good and nation interest even if it means going against the short-term interests of their own constituencies. . . . providing a solution to the problem of uninformed constituents who lack the necessary knowledge on issues to take an educated position. He does, however, estimate there was an almost equal split in public support for ratification or non-ratification.
The Founders of the United States wrote about differing economic interests in such a blunt way that it would get them accused of “class warfare” if they did it today. In the famous Federalist Paper #10, James Madison writes: “The most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, full under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views.”
Although I can’t suggest an alternative, I wouldn’t recommend this as an introduction to Antifederalist thought. Readers may find much of the book excessively detailed in its state by state – and sometimes county by county – description of the conflict.
The divisions between the two factions are usually described here in economic terms.
To simplify quite a bit, Federalist representatives and their constituency were both wealthier and from commercial (“mercantile”) areas, or areas with large landowners and slaveholders. Antifederalist representatives and their constituency were poorer and from agricultural areas with smaller farms, which tended to be in debt. There was also a division between other debtors and creditors. Between states, there were different interests depending on whether a state was more of an importer or exporter.
Georgia also supported a stronger central government because it believed it would give them an advantage in conflicts with Native Americans. A similar situation existed in Western Virginia.
Main summarizes historians’ theories of the political split: the sectional hypothesis, class antagonisms, “or lack of vision, age, or religion.” He emphatically rejects the age of delegates as a factor. He also finds no meaningful pattern among the various Protestant sects.
As mentioned about, he considered class divisions as an important factor. People at the time described the conflict in these terms. Main writes: “a considerable number of Federalists did not approve of the upsurge of the democracy and praised the Constitution as a check on popular majorities.” Antifederalists, in turn, and the states they were stronger in, were more democratic, although Main writes that even Antifederalist leaders stated views that were somewhat less democratic than their constituencies.
Main notes, however, that merchants ( including “mechanicks”) of any economic class were very likely to be supportive of ratification. Cities and towns, where they were located, were also Federalist strongholds, as were surrounding rural areas that were directly connected to them commercially.
Federalists gained an advantage by being better organized in the distribution of their arguments to newspapers, doing it sooner and more widely. Newspapers, centered in commercial areas, were usually pro-Federalist anyway. Federalists also had more well-known political leaders on their side. Another problem for the Antifederalists was that there was near-universal agreement that the federal government needed to be strengthened in some way, and they failed to present an alternative.
However, he concludes that without the promise of amendments the Constitution would not have been ratified.
Main concludes also, that, “It will never be known whether a majority of the voters - to say nothing of all the people – opposed ratification” There is no way to know with certainty whether delegates reflected public opinion. The Constitution itself, of course, was written in secret. They considered themselves trustees in the sense it is used today, someone who has “autonomy to deliberate and act in favor of the greater common good and nation interest even if it means going against the short-term interests of their own constituencies. . . . providing a solution to the problem of uninformed constituents who lack the necessary knowledge on issues to take an educated position. He does, however, estimate there was an almost equal split in public support for ratification or non-ratification.
The Founders of the United States wrote about differing economic interests in such a blunt way that it would get them accused of “class warfare” if they did it today. In the famous Federalist Paper #10, James Madison writes: “The most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, full under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views.”
Although I can’t suggest an alternative, I wouldn’t recommend this as an introduction to Antifederalist thought. Readers may find much of the book excessively detailed in its state by state – and sometimes county by county – description of the conflict.
January 29, 2009
I didn't find this to be a particularly well argued book. Main tries to argue that the Antifederalists' main reason for opposing the ratification of the Constitution was political. However, he seems to undermine this argument with his emphasis on economics.
February 19, 2010
An excellent, thorough overview of the subject. Anti-federalism was neither systematic nor monolithic, and F. J. Main (grandson of the legendary Frederick Jackson Turner) does a fine job of analyzing its nuances and contradictions.
July 25, 2011
An essential book to read in any study of the creation of the U.S. Constitution and the arguments for and against the ratification of the document. Read this book first and then find another such as Ralph Ketcham's collection "The Antifederalist Papers" to read the original arguments.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews