The Federalists vs. The Antifederalists

The United States was a mess. It was 1787, and the young nation was deep in debt, the 13 states refused to work together—and there was no central leader to do anything about it.

How did it happen? Historians blame the first U.S. constitution—the Articles of Confederation—which the Continental Congress had adopted 10 years earlier, in 1777. That constitution initially gave almost all power to the individual states—making the central government so weak that it couldn’t even enforce laws.

But there was hope. Delegates from the states gathered in Pennsylvania in May 1787 to find a solution. Some said the Articles could be fixed, while others wanted to start over and create a new document that laid out the laws of the nation.

After months of heated debate, the men (no women were invited) wrote a new Constitution that set up a strong federal government. Using a quill pen, a majority of the delegates signed it. The document couldn’t take effect, however, without nine of the states ratifying it. Each state held its own special convention to decide.

Quickly, two groups emerged, with very different ideas about the role of the U.S. government: The Federalists liked the new Constitution because it gave the federal government a lot of power. The Antifederalists didn’t. They thought Americans’ freedoms were better protected by state governments. During the era of the constitutional clash, both sides gave speeches and published essays to persuade the states.

The fights sometimes turned violent. In the summer of 1788, Federalists staged a march through Albany, New York. A group of Antifederalists confronted them. An account printed in Freeman’s Journal said “a general battle took place, with swords, bayonets, clubs, stones . . . which lasted for some time, both parties fighting with the greatest rage.”

Many of the disagreements that surfaced when the nation was in its infancy are still going on today.

“We were having these fights 250 years ago, and these fights weren’t resolved by the U.S. Constitution,” says Henry L. Chambers Jr., a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia.

The United States was a mess. It was 1787, and the young nation was deep in debt. The 13 states refused to work together. There was no central leader to do anything about it.

How did it happen? Historians blame the first U.S. constitution, called the Articles of Confederation. The Continental Congress had adopted it in 1777. That constitution initially gave almost all power to the individual states. It made the central government so weak that it couldn’t even enforce laws.

But there was hope. Delegates from the states gathered in Pennsylvania in May 1787 to find a solution. Some said the Articles could be fixed. Others wanted to start over and create a new document that laid out the laws of the nation.

After months of heated debate, the men (no women were invited) wrote a new Constitution that set up a strong federal government. Using a quill pen, a majority of the delegates signed it. However, the document couldn’t take effect. Nine of the states had to ratifying it. Each state held its own special convention to decide.

Quickly, two groups emerged. They had very different ideas about the role of the U.S. government. The Federalists liked the new Constitution because it gave the federal government a lot of power. The Antifederalists didn’t. They thought Americans’ freedoms were better protected by state governments. During the era of the constitutional clash, both sides gave speeches. They published essays to persuade the states.

The fights sometimes turned violent. In the summer of 1788, Federalists staged a march through Albany, New York. A group of Antifederalists confronted them. An account printed in Freeman’s Journal said, “a general battle took place, with swords, bayonets, clubs, stones . . . which lasted for some time, both parties fighting with the greatest rage.”

Many of the disagreements that surfaced then are still going on today.

“We were having these fights 250 years ago, and these fights weren’t resolved by the U.S. Constitution,” says Henry L. Chambers Jr., a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia.

Whether or not the U.S. should have a strong federal government was the main clash between the Federalists and Antifederalists. Article VI of the Constitution says federal laws are “the supreme Law of the Land.” This is known as the supremacy clause. If federal and state laws conflict, federal laws win out in most cases.

The Antifederalists argued that Article VI would make the federal government too strong. States should have more power, they said, because they better understand the needs of their citizens.

A supreme federal government would “swallow up all the powers of the state governments,” wrote Robert Yates, an Antifederalist from New York. This, he argued, would lead to tyranny. But the Federalists insisted the national government needed the authority to force the states to follow laws—otherwise, the nation would remain disjointed, separate states acting in their own self-interest.

At the time, under the Articles of Confederation, the states each made their own laws. The national government lacked the power to impose taxes. This meant the country couldn’t pay its debts, regulate commerce, or put together a military to defend itself. The national government didn’t have the power to do much of anything.

“Without the substance of this [federal] power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter,” wrote James Madison, a Federalist from Virginia. Plus, Federalists noted, any powers not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution would still belong to the states.

Whether or not the U.S. should have a strong federal government was the main clash between the Federalists and Antifederalists. Article VI of the Constitution says federal laws are “the supreme Law of the Land.” This is known as the supremacy clause. If federal and state laws conflict, federal laws win out in most cases.

The Antifederalists argued that Article VI would make the federal government too strong. States should have more power, they said, because they better understand the needs of their citizens.

A supreme federal government would “swallow up all the powers of the state governments,” wrote Robert Yates, an Antifederalist from New York. He argued this would lead to tyranny. But the Federalists insisted the national government needed the authority to force the states to follow laws. Without it, the nation would remain disjointed. Separate states could act in their own self-interest.

At the time, under the Articles of Confederation, the states each made their own laws. The national government lacked the power to impose taxes. This meant the country couldn’t pay its debts. It couldn’t regulate commerce or put together a military to defend itself. The national government didn’t have the power to do much of anything.

“Without the substance of this federal power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter,” wrote James Madison, a Federalist from Virginia. Plus, Federalists noted, any powers not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution would still belong to the states.

Another key sticking point between the Federalists and Antifederalists was whether a president was necessary. The Constitution splits the government into the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, with the executive branch led by the president. To the Antifederalists, this sounded a lot like the monarchy America had just unshackled itself from in Great Britain. Antifederalists feared that “president” actually meant “elected king.”

Antifederalist Patrick Henry of Virginia argued that a president could misuse the military to stay in power. “What have you to oppose this force?” he asked voters in his state. “What will then become of you and your rights?”

Another key sticking point between the Federalists and Antifederalists was whether a president was necessary. The Constitution splits the government into the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The executive branch would be led by the president. To the Antifederalists, this sounded a lot like the monarchy in Great Britain. Antifederalists feared that “president” actually meant “elected king.”

Antifederalist Patrick Henry of Virginia argued that a president could misuse the military to stay in power. “What have you to oppose this force?” he asked voters in his state. “What will then become of you and your rights?”

Instead of having a president of the United States, some Antifederalists pushed for an executive council made up of a few people.

But the Federalists said a powerful president would enforce laws and keep the country safe from foreign attacks—and a single leader would be easier to hold accountable than a group, which could “conceal faults and destroy responsibility,” wrote Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist from New York.

Instead of having a president of the United States, some Antifederalists pushed for an executive council made up of a few people.

But the Federalists said a powerful president would enforce laws and keep the country safe from foreign attacks. A single leader would be easier to hold accountable than a group, which could “conceal faults and destroy responsibility,” wrote Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist from New York.

Near the end of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Virginia Antifederalist George Mason suggested adding a Bill of Rights (see “The Bill of Rights," below). Listing Americans’ individual freedoms would help protect citizens from a strong and powerful federal government, he said.

The other delegates rejected Mason’s idea. But he had foreseen a major complaint about the Constitution. He and other Antifederalists believed people’s personal rights—such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press—needed to be spelled out in order to safeguard them.

“A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on Earth, general or particular,” Thomas Jefferson argued, “and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

But the Federalists believed that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. The Constitution didn’t grant the government control over the press or speech or religion, they said. So why did they need another document protecting those rights? They also worried that listing all of people’s individual freedoms was impossible. If they forgot one, what then?

Near the end of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Virginia Antifederalist George Mason suggested adding a Bill of Rights (see “The Bill of Rights," below). Listing Americans’ individual freedoms would help protect citizens from a strong and powerful federal government, he said.

The other delegates rejected Mason’s idea. But he had foreseen a major complaint about the Constitution. He and other Antifederalists believed in protecting people’s personal rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. They felt it needed to be spelled out in order to protect them.

“A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on Earth, general or particular,” Thomas Jefferson argued, “and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

But the Federalists believed that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. The Constitution didn’t grant the government control over the press or speech or religion, they said. So why did they need another document protecting those rights? They also worried that listing all of people’s individual freedoms was impossible. If they forgot one, what then?

Ultimately, the Federalists’ arguments convinced enough states that the new Constitution, though not perfect, was a big improvement over the Articles of Confederation. Plus, the document could be amended. In fact, several states suggested amendments to the Constitution at the same time they voted to ratify it.

“Clearly,” says Chambers, “those states were saying: This is a step along the way. We’re going to ratify, but we know we’re not done.”

In December 1787, Delaware became the first state to approve the Constitution. Other states followed. In June 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify—the last vote needed. On March 4, 1789, the date set by Congress, the Constitution officially became the law of the land.

Though they hadn’t supported the Constitution, the Antifederalists did leave their mark on it. In 1789, the very first Congress under the Constitution agreed that it was important to protect Americans from too much government control. Two years later, the freedoms Antifederalists had demanded became the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

Ultimately, the Federalists’ arguments convinced enough states that the new Constitution, though not perfect, was a big improvement over the Articles of Confederation. Plus, the document could be amended. In fact, several states suggested amendments to the Constitution at the same time they voted to ratify it.

“Clearly,” says Chambers, “those states were saying: This is a step along the way. We’re going to ratify, but we know we’re not done.”

In December 1787, Delaware became the first state to approve the Constitution. Other states followed. In June 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify—the last vote needed. On March 4, 1789, the date set by Congress, the Constitution officially became the law of the land.

Though they hadn’t supported the Constitution, the Antifederalists did leave their mark on it. In 1789, the very first Congress under the Constitution agreed that it was important to protect Americans from too much government control. Two years later, the freedoms Antifederalists had demanded became the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

Today 235 years after the Constitution became the law of the land, we no longer have factions known as the Federalists and Antifederalists. But many of the conflicts that divided them remain in American politics.

For example, most Republicans today believe the federal government has too much power, allowing it to trample on the rights of the states, while most Democrats argue for a strong federal government so it can enforce laws to better the lives of Americans. Though few question the need for the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court remains divided over how to interpret those rights in 2024.

And presidential authority has long been hotly debated. For example, presidents have the power to issue executive orders without congressional approval, sometimes provoking arguments about whether they’ve sidestepped lawmakers and the people they represent. And as commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, modern presidents can order military attacks on other nations without a formal declaration of war from Congress. Have presidents abused their power, exceeding what the Constitution grants them? Expect to hear that question again.

“How should we navigate the question of where power resides?” asks Chambers. “These are going to be fights that occur throughout our lifetimes.” 

Today 235 years after the Constitution became the law of the land, we no longer have factions known as the Federalists and Antifederalists. But many of the conflicts that divided them remain in American politics.

For example, most Republicans today believe the federal government has too much power, allowing it to trample on the rights of the states. Most Democrats argue for a strong federal government so it can enforce laws to better the lives of Americans. Though few question the need for the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court remains divided over how to interpret those rights in 2024.

And presidential authority has long been hotly debated. For example, presidents have the power to issue executive orders without congressional approval. This sometimes provokes arguments about whether they’ve sidestepped lawmakers and the people they represent. And as commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, modern presidents can order military attacks on other nations without a formal declaration of war from Congress. Have presidents abused their power, exceeding what the Constitution grants them? Expect to hear that question again.

“How should we navigate the question of where power resides?” asks Chambers. “These are going to be fights that occur throughout our lifetimes.”