Federalists and Anti-Federalists: what did the debates do?

In our conclusion to our series on the Federalist debates that gave us our constitution, we try to wrap up their overall impact on the U.S., in their own time, and over the centuries since 1787.

We haven’t hit all the topics of debate in this series; for example, we haven’t looked at the worthy Anti-Federalists criticisms of the Supreme Court (they balked at the idea of having an unelected, lifetime-term body that could overturn the laws of Congress as it pleased; as usual, the Federalists replied that any body in service of the just Constitution would never become tyrannical). We have also left out the demand for a Bill of Rights, which was general on both sides, Federalist and Anti-Federalist (more on that in a later series).But we have gotten a sense of the categories of debate in general: the Anti-Federalists wanted to keep government as small and, crucially, as local as possible to avoid its corruption; and the Federalists wanted to give the federal government elastic powers to meet unforeseen dilemmas in the future, as well as to control the all-too-real and familiar dilemmas the young nation was already facing.

But in a larger sense, the Federalist debates were important not for their content, but for their happening at all. After popularly elected delegates met to create a new body of national laws, the entire nation was invited to participate in the debate over their ratification as our Constitution. Every aspect of the proposed Constitution was dissected and put under the microscope, and dissenters were free to publish their dissent, their criticisms and fears, in the free press. 85 Federalist Papers were published between October 1787 and August 1788. This is a far cry from the usual press treatment of big issues today, which usually feature a flurry of intense coverage for a week or so, then a near-complete dropping off of interest. For nearly a year the nation weighed the pros and cons of the proposed Constitution and the government it would create in a public forum where no holds were barred. Then the states elected delegates to participate in ratification conventions, and in most states people thronged outside the building where the conventions met, waiting to hear what they had chosen—to accept the new Constitution or not. Over 10 months, the required 9 states voted to ratify, which the caveat that a Bill of Rights be written and added to the Constitution as the first order of business of the  new government.

This democratic process must have inspired some Americans to believe in the Federalist promise that republican virtue could be relied on  even in a large population. No one had been censored, no one arrested or imprisoned, no one lost their property or their livelihood as a result of the position they took on the Constitution. Americans must also have been inspired by the near-blinding modernity of the ideas in the Constitution, and the futuristic nation they at once created and imagined.

We have seen over the centuries since 1788 that the Anti-Federalists got a lot right; their questions about state power to counter federal power, the danger of giving any government body unlimited power to act in the name of national security, and the tendency of power to corrupt have been proven pertinent many times over. Yet we see that the Federalists’ main precept was correct: any government, even a small, local, state government, can become corrupt if people lose faith in the principles of democracy. Keeping things local is no guaranty against corruption. And we can’t rely on one segment of the population—the small farmer or, to add today’s like category, the blue-collar worker—to provide all the republican virtue. Everyone has to be raised up in the tradition and discipline of democracy. Every citizen has to be committed to upholding the Constitution. And the most committed citizens should serve in our government—not the richest or celebrity citizens. If we believe in the principles the Constitution offers, we will send people to Washington who also believe in them, and will actively uphold them in the face of temptation to corruption.

And so we leave the U.S. in 1788, with its newly ratified Constitution, and centuries ahead of it to work out the million problems old and new, expected and completely unanticipated, that would challenge the strength of that document and the commitment of those citizens. We should take with us as we go a bit of their republican virtue to solve the problems we face in our own time.

4 thoughts on “Federalists and Anti-Federalists: what did the debates do?

  1. Dear R. Sos, really enjoying this newly discovered Blog. Share much
    in common about History v. Myth. On the Constitution, Madison was not “the Father” as even he admitted. Real framers were the anti-Federalists!
    See W. Kirk Wood, Nullification, A Constitutional History, 1776-1833, 2 volumes, University Press of America, 2008, 2009.
    Also completing lengthy article, “Beyond Slavery: A New History for a New
    Nation and the Northern-Romantic-Nationalist Origins of America’s Civil War, 1776-1865” for J. of Southern History. 1861-1865 very much about 1776 and 1787 and what framers and founders intended versus what they did not (as reinterpreted by Abolitionists and Lincoln and the 19th Republican Party. Need full name for citation in Declaration of Independence bibliography for “A Declaration of Independence Not Equality: Historians Tell the Truth about 1776.”


  2. I am very glad to have found your blog and have enjoyed reading the posts. I do believe that the Constitution worked fairly well until it was wounded, fatally maybe, by the 16th and 17th Amendments. Changing the manner of taxation to income and property has given the national government power well beyond what the founders every envisioned with only tariffs and excise taxes. The feds have almost unlimited (in their minds) money and can bully, threaten and otherwise destroy persons and businesses through the tax code. The change of Senators from State selection to popular election is a mistake I cannot understand no matter how much I read about it. That was a huge balance of power shift from States to “the people” which actually was a power shift to the national government. I don’t foresee any possibility of either of those amendments being repealed, but if they were, it would go a long way to returning to a less powerful national government and more powerful States as Madison described in Federalist 45.


    1. Hello patriotpilgrim; thanks for writing. Your point is well-taken; maybe we at the HP need to get a short series together on these amendments…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s