The Anti-Federalist Papers

by Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, Robert Yates

*This enhanced edition of The Anti-Federalist Papers includes illustrations and the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Anti-Federalism refers to a movement that opposed the development of a stronger U.S. federal government during the period of the Constitutional Convention. The previous governing documents called the Articles of Confederation gave state governments ultimate authority unlike the new U. S. Constitution, which attempted to put the federal government on equal footing. Led by Patrick Henry, George Mason, George Clinton, Melancton Smith, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, and Samuel Bryan, among others, the Anti-Federalists worried that the office of the president might become similar to the monarchy that Americans initially left behind in England.

In order to oppose the ratification of the new Constitution, A series of articles were written called The Anti-Federalist Papers. The articles offer a detailed explanation of Anti-Federalist though and can be used as a counter to The Federalist Papers that were written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay in favor of the ratification of the U. S. Constitution.

Genres: History, Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, American History, Law, Classics

188 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

The term Founding Fathers of the United States of America refers broadly to the individuals of the Thirteen British Colonies in North America who led the American Revolution against the authority of the British Crown and established the United States of America. It is also used more narrowly, referring specifically to those who either signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or who were delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention and took part in drafting the proposed Constitution of the United States. A further subset includes those who signed the Articles of Confederation. During much of the 19th century, they were referred to as either the "Founders" or the "Fathers".

Some historians define the "Founding Fathers" to mean a larger group, including not only the Signers and the Framers but also all those who, whether as politicians, jurists, statesmen, soldiers, diplomats, or ordinary citizens, took part in winning American independence and creating the United States of America. Historian Richard B. Morris in 1973 identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington . Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin worked on the committee to draft the Declaration of Independence. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were authors of the The Federalist Papers, advocating ratification of the Constitution. Washington commanded the revolutionary army. All served in important positions in the early government of the United States.

DOB based on First Continental Congress
DOD based on death of James Madison, last surviving member

Reviews

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having now read both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers, I can get a glimpse of the full debate which took place between the end of the Constitutional Convention and the eventual ratification. Many of the concerns of the Anti-Federalists were included in the first ten amendments, known today as the Bill of Rights. The writer of the Anti-Federalist Papers shared many common concerns: a general mistrust of ceding power to a national government, a fear of an all encompassing judiciary, and a fear that state governments would become obsolete. Many of these objections were answered through the adoption of the Bill of Rights as well as Amendments XI and XII. However, the great lesson for us today is that many of the things we were warned about are coming true today. The national government, executive, legislative and judiciary, are joining forces to limit our freedoms.

[James Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hearing the debate of those who were skeptical of adding more power to the central government made me aware of how I probably would have perceived the constitutional convention. While some of the worries of these skeptics ended up being not relevant, many of their concerns were prophetic:

- granting the central government the power to tax would result in despotism
- standing armies would result in the quest for empire
- the "necessary and proper" clause would be abused
- the strong central government would result in a civil war (a debate the the federalists argued would happen if the central government weren't given more power; history has proven who won that argument...)
- ultimately, the increase in power of the federal government will result in more power for the elite and less freedom for the masses

Notwithstanding the weaknesses that the federal system has, it'd be far more beneficial to our nation if our government were to limit itself to the powers vested to it by the constitution. Reading this debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists makes me wish that this is where public debate were at today. Rather we have fascists/socialists debating each other about whether they should tax us 47% or 48% and whether we should starve a foreign country or drop bombs on it.

[Illiterate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Promotes a less centralized & more democratic state. Some arguments are even more pertinent in an era of professional politicians, strong parties, mass media.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is said that history is written by the victors. This is true, as federalist arguments are predictably pounded into the head of every American until they leave State schooling, and of course in most cases, afterwards as well.

However, in this case, we have preserved the written opposition to the victors of history. And is it appalling to see how accurate and well-founded their arguments were.

While the original bill of rights were passed as a palliative to the several of the concerns of the opponents of the constitution, most of their primary detractions remain and were quickly manifested:

Horrific Civil War. The overstep and growth of presidential power. The absurd inadequacy of the ratio of members of the House of Representatives to number of citizens. The absolute lack of checks on rulings by the Supreme Court. The continual diminishment and bankruptcy of state power, state courts, and state treasuries. Collision and blending of the branches of government into one aristocracy opposed to and above the common people. No checks on international treaty power.

The list of grievances gets its due diligence in these papers, and the modern reader cannot help but see the immanent reason behind all of it. One cannot help but be struck by the fact while reading this, that one can be so firmly on the right side of reason and experience, yet not be found victorious in the annals of history.

[Charles · Rating 5 out of 5]

Prophetic and disturbing

I haven't read The Federalist papers yet, but I find the arguments here against the Constitution to be disturbingly prophetic.

Had not the bill of rights been ratified, most of these concerns would certainly have come to fruition.

[Neal · Rating 5 out of 5]

One must read the Anti Federalist Papers to get the rest of the story of America. From these readings one begins to understand why we have the division we have in our society. Most people skip reading (if they are even aware of this source)and never get the complete story. Although I keep this book in my archives (Kindle) I do pull it up from time to time to refresh my memory.

[John Yelverton · Rating 5 out of 5]

As amazing as "The Federalist Papers" are, the "Anti-Federalist Papers" are just as amazing in not just their concerns for the States losing their sovereignty, but the accuracy in many of their predictions as well.

[L E X (Analyyttiset kirja-arvostelut) · Rating 5 out of 5]

1780-luvun lopulla Yhdysvalloissa käytiin kiivas debatti siitä, millainen valtiollinen järjestys entisissä Englannin siirtokunnissa tulisi olla. Taustalla oli Englannin kanssa käyty sota, jonka aikana Yhdysvallat oli julistautunut itsenäiseksi emämaastaan.

Federalistit näkivät, että silloinen valtioliitto oli riittämätön ja tarvittaisiin riittävän vahva liittovaltio, joka yhdistäisi osavaltiot tiiviimmäksi yhteisöksi. Vastakkaista näkemystä edustivat antifederalistit, jotka katsoivat silloisen valtioliittosopimuksen riittäväksi. Antifederalist Papers kertoo nimenomaan perustuslakiuudistuksen vastustajien näkökulmasta. Kirjaan on koostettu 85 esseetä tuolta ajalta. Myös liittovaltion kannattajien teksteistä julkaistiin "Federalist Papers", ja siksi tämä on nimetty samalla mallilla. Toisin kuin laajasti siteerattu Federalist Papers, tämä teos on vähemmän tunnettu. Tämä unohdus historian hämärään on harmillista, sillä näiden kahden leirin käymässä ideologisessa ristiriidassa oli pitkälti kyse siitä mitä amerikkalaisuus merkitsee; onko se vapautta vai jotain muuta?

Syitä liittovaltion vastustamiseen oli monia. Osa antifederalisteista vastusti liittovaltiota sen korkeiden kustannusten vuoksi, kun taas toiset vastustivat sitä toimivallan kasvusta seuraavien potentiaalisten uhkien vuoksi. Liittovaltion vallan kasvu nähtiin uhkana, koska sen pelättiin johtavan uuteen alistuksen aikakauteen, kun omasta valtiovallasta tulee uusi sortaja (verotus, elinkeinoelämän rajoittaminen jne). Liittovaltion toimivallan kasvu on argumenttina siis ikivanha ja se on edelleen nähtävillä Yhdysvaltojen sisäpolitiikassa.

Yhdysvaltojen perustuslaki ja erityisesti perusoikeusluettelo (Bill of Rights) sai vaikutteita antifederalistien vaatimuksista. Tämän luettuaan on helpompaa ymmärtää, miksi Yhdysvalloissa yksilönvapauksiin, osavaltioiden oikeuksiin, ampuma-aseisiin ja verotukseen suhtaudutaan paljon intohimoisemmin kuin eurooppalaisissa yhteiskunnissa. Juuret juontavat Yhdysvaltojen voimakkaaseen liberalistiseen perinteeseen, jonka mukaan ihmiset syntyvät vapaina eikä valtiolla ole oikeutta rajoittaa ihmisille kuuluvia luonnollisia oikeuksia. Militia-järjestelmän, eli kansalaissotilaista koostuvan puolustusratkaisun ymmärtäminen on välttämätöntä Yhdysvaltojen historian tutkimuksessa ja niin se on myös tämänkin tekstikokoelman kohdalla.

Ei voi olla huomaamatta, kuinka universaaleja argumentteja antifederalistit toivat kehiin. Isossa kuvassa argumentaation vastakkaisissa pooleissa ovat vapaus valtiosta ja toisella puolella valtion takaama turvallisuus. Samoja argumentteja voitaisiin käyttää missä tahansa muussa liittovaltiokeskustelussa toisella puolen maapalloa. Tämä onkin kummallista, koska esimerkiksi Suomen EU-integraatiota koskeva argumentaatio on hyvin alkeellista, tai sitä ei ole lainkaan. Tästä kirjasta saa argumentteja, jotka on pureskeltu valmiiksi reilut pari vuosisataa sitten. Yhdysvaltojen historia on elävä esimerkki siitä, millaisia vaikutuksia tietyillä perustuslakikirjauksilla on (ja kuinka hyvin niistä pidetään kiinni vielä 200 vuoden päästä), joten olisi epärationaalista olla huomioimatta sitä EU-liittovaltiokeskustelussa.

Tekstit ovat edelleen ajankohtaisia ja monet kirjoituksissa esiintyvistä kauhuennustuksista ovat käyneet toteen. Suosittelen tätä kirjoituskokoelmaa kaikille, jotka haluavat ymmärtää paremmin Yhdysvaltojen historiaa ja sielunmaisemaa. Politiikan kommentaattoreille ja tutkijoille lähes pakollista luettavaa.

Arvosana: 5/5

[Kimberly Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Required reading for understanding the mindset of America at the time of the constitution. The Anti -Federalist papers written or spoken between 1787 and 1790 by opposition to the new centralized government with power over states included Mason, Penn, and Henry and many others. They spoke in response to Jay, Hamilton, and Madison who wrote the Federalist papers as a way to gain support and educated the republic about the constitution.


The Anti-Federalists were in first part upset at what they thought was a supposed to be only an amending of the Articles of Confederation in which the 13 states of America all had separate but equal power and rights to govern themselves how they sought fit. The government they understood was necessary as a small unified representative body to help monitor tax on imports, land treaties, and relations with other governments. However they did not expect that a new constitution would be written that would hijack the freedoms they thought they had fought to achieve over the last 8 years.

They were concerned to find out that the constitution would create federal tax, courts, laws, armies, and representatives that could over rule their individual state governments of courts, laws, armies and representatives. At the time there was no Bill of Rights, Presidents had unlimited terms, the nation was recovering economically from war and had little income to be taxed by both state and nation, and had just fought to be free from taxes and laws by those that thought they knew better.


In fact the issue seemed to be most concisely, would this new "experiment" in government be a nation of free men with no over reaching centralized government or a nation of free men in terms of non hereditary rights to participate fairly in a newly powered centralized government. But if it was the case in fact that this government was supposed to be represented by the people - would those people still be people with the most money and education even lacking title that sought power over the simple farmer who just wished to be left to his own on his own land.


In this argument, those differences in opinion helped to continue to form the new constitution so as to help balance state rights and yet still the root of contentions that remain in todays government.

[Robert Glover · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was my first time through the Anti-Federalist papers, a counter to the Federalist papers. I'm going to read them through again, same as I am now, in conjunction with the Federalist papers.

These guys were as sharp as the Federalists and they made some great arguments, proving prescient in predicting problems that might occur with the new Constitution. Some things were almost unavoidable:

1) The Second Constitutional Convention exceeded their charter: this is true, but I don't see how they could have helped it. I don't think a better version of the Articles of Confederation would have sufficed.

2) No Bill of Rights: the founders rectified this shortly afterwards.

3) Inability to govern a large area from one city: they were right about this, which is why we opted for a federalist system where the state and local governments have more power.

There were more complaints than this and they weren't always right, but the dialogue between the Feds and Anti-Feds is what mattered. They had an impact.

[Gavin · Rating 5 out of 5]

The older I get, the more I'm an Anti-Federalist. I need to read the Storing edition.

[Doris Raines · Rating 5 out of 5]

I LIKE THIS BOOK.

[Cree Dalene · Rating 4 out of 5]

These offer a solid discussion and counterpoints to the Federalist Papers. Without them, understanding would be much more difficult.

[Dayla · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not as interesting as the Federalist Papers.

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yes they were right, but so were the federalists, that’s why you read both

[neeka · Rating 4 out of 5]

this should be required far more often than it is

[Marlowe Glass · Rating 1 out of 5]

I cannot imagine making these arguments.

[Gina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honestly, some valid arguments in here that proved the importance of the addition of Bill of Rights to the Constitution since its ratification.

[Doug · Rating 5 out of 5]

"hydra made its way from the dark conclave into the open light."

That sums up what I learned while reading. The fact that not one section, not one quote from this is generally taught in high school is very telling. Americans are meant to be ignorant to the interworkings of their government and even their own history in how the Constitution was debated before being adopted. Anyone who has not read this in part or in whole, cannot begin to speak in matters of American politics with any true understanding of what they speak, myself was formerlly included in that.

To hear the arguments and the questions regarding a federal government being formed around the confederation of states is extremely eye popping, not just eye opening. I thank God these people spoke up and wrote what they did. If they had been silent, gone along with the crowd and the political correctness of their time in the 1780s, there certainly would have been a far worse federal government than there even is now.

"It is deceiving a people to tell them they are electors, and can choose their legislators, if they cannot, in the nature of things, choose men from among themselves, and genuinely like themselves."

That was written around 1788 and it is so relevant today when looking at American politicians. Much of these writings contain insightful and prophetic thoughts. I thoroughly enjoyed reading all of it.

They're are so many incredibly pertinent and relevant and inspiring quotes in these papers even in 2016. Too many to share here. I think every person should read at least some of this, whether American or not. I highly recommend it.

[Richard Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unlike the Federalist Papers, which express a consistent and coherent point of view in favor of the Constitution expounded by Hamilton and Madison, the Anti Federalist Papers are a collection of a diverse group of essays from a variety of authors with different points of view, who had some common themes, but who are generally only united by opposition. The quality of the writing and persuasiveness of the arguments vary greatly. The Federalist Farmer was the best of the bunch, both as to the quality of his prose and his argument. Brutus was a good writer, but a bit shrill. Patrick Henry was eloquent, but empty. On one level, the fears of an imperial presidency, an aristocratic senate, and a standing army were overblown. The checks and balances built into the Constitution have worked pretty well for more than 200 years,. But the Anti Federalists were right in insisting that we needed a Bill of Rights, and they were right that the federal government would become hugely powerful and expensive and would overshadow the states, but it would have been far worse if we had tried to struggle along with the herding of cats that we had under the Articles of Confederation. I have a deep suspicion of government, so if I had lived at the time, I might have been an Anti Federalist, but I would have been wrong and would have joined these gentlemen in the dustbin of history.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

This collection had nearly tragically been lost to history.

Most people don't remember anything about the Articles of Confederation or the debates surrounding the ratification of the US Constitution. Most of us are aware that the Federalist Papers exist and serve as the anonymous voice in support of the Constitution. Well, here's the other side of the coin—the argument that the Articles of Confederation were all that was necessary to the government of a free people in the absence of the strong Federal government that, from this point of view, the Federalist Papers argued for.

Read it as alternative history if you're into that sort of thing, or a possibly tragic look at what might have been.

[Michael Stumborg · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I wrote Hillary Clinton's Village , I noted that those in opposition to the new Constitution – the Anti-Federalists – deserve an equal share of the credit for the final form of our Constitution. The Federalists would have to win over the Anti-Federalists, or refute their objections to the new Constitution, if they had any hope of seeing it ratified by the States. No doubt then, that the “loyal opposition” put forward in the The Anti-Federalist Papers made the protections in our Constitution stronger. You have to read this if you want a deep understanding of the Framer's intentions. I can think of a few Supreme Court Justices who should probably give this a read.

[Paul B Norton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anti-Federalist Papers are a blueprint on Nullification

Anti-Federalist Papers are a blueprint on how to nullify the freedoms of the U. S. Constitution and at the same time use power of the constitutional national government to create an absolute central government. Understandably not studied in public school as the Federalist papers are. All the political ills of 21th century America is predicted by these Anti-Federalists who with pedantic and accurate understanding of human nature (and not distracted by pokemons) dot the it's and cross the t's in settings out the blueprint for tyranny.
"A republic if you can keep it."

[Jack Haefner · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very important work. Even a casual reader will see how the Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments survive to this day with a number of Anti-Federalist arguments were incorporated in the final US Constitution (most notably, in the Bill of Rights).

The Federalists have the distinct advantage of both coherence of argument and assembly of the documents. Since I read the Anti-Federalists after the Federalist Papers, I had difficulty following the arguments and logic train of Anti-Federalists for this reason.

[Tate · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Anti-Federalist Papers provide a look at the opposition to the ratification of the United States Constitution. Anti-Federalists like George Clinton, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Robert Yates were skeptical about the increased power of the federal government under the new Constitution and the lack of a Bill of Rights. This a great read for history lovers and anyone who wants to understand the debates over federal government verses state government powers or civil liberties.

[Queme · Rating 3 out of 5]

Because of goodreads' lamentable and unwise intertwining with amazon.com, the edition of The Anti-Federalist Papers that I read, is not included in goodreads' list of books. So I somewhat arbitrarily selected this book as the one I "read," when in fact it was a different edition, invisible to the narrow eyes of goodreads' amazon collaborators.

[Nickie]

It was not this book but I don't see a book for the composed anti-fed papers. I often liked Brutus said. More often I did not understand much of Hamilton on the Federalist side. I realize it would take more re-reading but can't imagine I will go here again.

[J. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Required reading as part of a graduate Political Science Seminar during the mid 90s. Probably had as much to do with my conversation away from being a conservative republican as any experience I've ever had.

[Connor Copeland · Rating 4 out of 5]

Everything up till the presidency was great.

I thought many of the points made on the legislative branch, taxation, and the balance of power between the federal and state governments were well founded. The attacks on the judiciary and presidency not as much.

[Dan Traina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Again, this is a must read