The Anti-Federalist Papers Explained

Summary

This video from Hip Hughes History explores the lesser-known Anti-Federalist Papers, which opposed the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. While the Federalist Papers supported a strong central government, Anti-Federalists feared that such power would lead to tyranny. Figures like George Clinton and Patrick Henry argued for more localized control and self-rule, warning against the rise of elite power and the erosion of state sovereignty. The video reviews key Anti-Federalist arguments about taxation, standing armies, and the lack of a Bill of Rights, ultimately highlighting their lasting influence on American political thought.

Takeaways

• 📜 The Anti-Federalist Papers, unlike the famous Federalist Papers, also played a crucial role in debating the ratification of the US Constitution.
• 🇺🇸 The Articles of Confederation, used between 1776-1787, provided a loose confederation of states with minimal central government power, leading to issues like Shay’s Rebellion.
• ⚖️ The Federalists advocated for a new Constitution to address these issues, while the Anti-Federalists warned of the dangers of a centralized government.
• 👨‍⚖️ Prominent Anti-Federalist writers included George Clinton, Patrick Henry, and anonymous figures like Brutus, KO, and the Federal Farmer.
• 💰 Anti-Federalists feared the Constitution would benefit an elite ruling class, increasing the power of bankers, merchants, and politicians at the expense of ordinary citizens.
• 🪖 Anti-Federalist Paper 8 argued against a standing army, believing it could be used to suppress citizens, referencing events like the Whiskey Rebellion.
• 🏛️ Anti-Federalist Paper 9 argued that the new Senate and President were tools of the elite, protecting their interests over those of ordinary people.
• 📜 Paper 17 warned that federal powers, like the elastic clause and judicial supremacy, would eventually erode state power.
• 💡 The lack of a Bill of Rights was a major concern for the Anti-Federalists, leading to the eventual inclusion of the first 10 amendments in the Constitution.
• ⚖️ In their final remarks (Paper 85), Anti-Federalists argued the Constitution needed revisions to prevent federal tyranny and to better secure individual liberties.

Q & A

What were the Anti-Federalist Papers, and how do they compare to the Federalist Papers?

The Anti-Federalist Papers were a collection of essays written by various authors arguing against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Unlike the Federalist Papers, which were a unified and organized defense of the Constitution written by prominent figures like Madison, Jay, and Hamilton, the Anti-Federalist Papers were less coordinated, written by different individuals under pseudonyms like Brutus and Federal Farmer.

Why were the Articles of Confederation considered weak, and what event highlighted this weakness?

The Articles of Confederation were seen as weak because they created a loose confederation of states with a weak central government that lacked a judicial or executive branch, the power to tax, and the ability to maintain a standing army. Shay’s Rebellion highlighted this weakness, showing that the federal government could not handle internal conflicts, which led to calls for a stronger central government.

What was the main fear of the Anti-Federalists regarding the U.S. Constitution?

The Anti-Federalists feared that the U.S. Constitution would create a strong central government that would become tyrannical, stripping away the liberties of the people and overpowering state governments. They were particularly concerned about the power being concentrated in the hands of the elite, like bankers and merchants.

Who were some of the key figures behind the Anti-Federalist Papers?

Notable figures behind the Anti-Federalist Papers include George Clinton, the governor of New York, and Patrick Henry, who authored many of the essays. There were also other lesser-known authors who wrote under pseudonyms such as Brutus, Federal Farmer, and Montezuma.

What was the Anti-Federalist view on a standing army, as expressed in Paper No. 8?

In Anti-Federalist Paper No. 8, the authors expressed concerns about the federal government having a standing army. They feared that such a force could be used to suppress the liberties of citizens, citing examples like the Whiskey Rebellion and the federal government’s use of troops to enforce integration in schools.

What were the Anti-Federalists' arguments against the structure of the Senate and presidency?

In Anti-Federalist Paper No. 9, the authors argued that the Senate and the presidency were designed to protect the interests of the elite. They viewed the Senate as an unaccountable body, where two-thirds of its members were insulated from election, making it difficult to hold them responsible. They also believed that the House of Representatives was subservient to the more powerful Senate.

What concerns did Anti-Federalist Paper No. 17 raise about federal power over state power?

Anti-Federalist Paper No. 17 argued that the U.S. Constitution’s provisions, such as the elastic clause, the supremacy clause, and the interstate commerce system, would ultimately allow federal power to grow and dominate state governments, undermining the autonomy of the states.

Why did the Anti-Federalists advocate for amendments to the Articles of Confederation rather than a new Constitution?

The Anti-Federalists believed that the issues with the Articles of Confederation could be addressed through amendments rather than creating an entirely new Constitution. In Paper No. 22, they argued that abandoning the Articles risked losing liberties to what they saw as an emerging tyranny under the new Constitution.

How did the Anti-Federalists address the issue of taxation in their papers?

Several Anti-Federalist Papers, including Papers No. 32 through 36, expressed concerns that giving the central government the power to tax would lead to the concentration of too much power. They feared that the federal government would become self-serving and grow beyond control.

What was the Anti-Federalist stance on the lack of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution?

Anti-Federalist Paper No. 84 emphasized the absence of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution as a major flaw. The Anti-Federalists argued that without explicitly enumerated rights, citizens' liberties were at risk of being infringed upon by the federal government. This argument was influential in the eventual inclusion of the Bill of Rights.