Maranatha Baptist Bible College
Why the Antifederalist Position was Superior in 1787
Submitted to:
William Licht
Early American Political Thought
HUHI 230
October 22, 2011
By
Jason Garrison
2
In the early years of our nation, political factions developed that distinctly opposed one another.
The Federalist and Antifederalists disagreed on one issue in particular- power within the government.
Should there be a central government? Who gives the government its power? How much power should
the government possess? These are all questions that were debated endlessly in the summer of 1787.
While men on both sides of the issue possessed wisdom, character, patriotic values, and strong arguments,
they were faced with organizing the details of our government, which was not an easy task. It is often said
that vision is perfect in hindsight, and that would be the case with the writing of the constitution. Given
the circumstances at the time, I would have chosen to be an Antifederalist. I believe the Antifederalists
had an accurate view of the following: how a correct republic should function, the need for a bill of rights,
and a proper plan for separation of powers.
How a Republic Should Function
The Antifederalists placed an emphasis on having the correct model of a Republic. Believing that
the Federalists were destroying the correct definition of a republic, the Antifederalists made sure to
meticulously display a traditional view of republican government. Antifederalists claimed that a Republic
spread out over a vast amount of land would eventually destroy the nation.1 While there was a desire for
unity, their view of representation found its base in state legislatures. This viewpoint evolved from the
harsh disagreement with the Federal Convention of 1787 which advocated a very strong central
government. New Republicanism or the “large republic” was defended by many Federalist writers, and
advocated the adoption of a Republican model similar to Rome.2 Antifederalists could not be more
opposed to this position. In the minds of Antifederalists, this model was doomed for failure. As one Whig
1
An Old Whig. Antifederalist No. 18-20 “What Does History Teach? (Part 1)”.
2
Madison, James. Federalist No. 10 “The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and
Insurrection (continued)”.
3
writer put it: “A confederacy of republics must be the establishment in America, or we must cease
altogether to retain the republican form of government. From the moment we become one great republic,
either in form or substance, the period is very shortly removed when we shall sink first into monarchy,
and then into despotism.”3 The Antifederalist model assured that states would be empowered to make
decisions that were best for their constituency. I strongly believe their model was far superior not only in
giving more personal liberty to American citizens, but also ensuring that the voice of the people is most
accurately interpreted by the government.
Necessary Bill of Rights
In addition to a strong emphasis on the correct Republic style of government, the Antifederalists
were adamant and uncompromising about the need for a written Bill of Rights. To emphasize its value,
leaders of the Antifederalist faction actually stated that the Bill of Rights was more important than the
constitution itself.4 Present in the Antifederalist party was an overlap of Whig ideals that valued
immensely a written proclamation of rights such as the Magna Carta. Primarily, the Bill of Rights was
intended to ensure the protection of life, liberty, property, and the constitution itself.5 Within the issue of
liberty, the need for a written document arose when Federalists contended that the power should rest in
the elected assembly of congress. Hamilton claimed that the risk of ex-post facto, or outdated laws was
too great, and that the constitution should be viewed loosely as a living document, interpreted by the
elected officials as the time period would dictate.6 This clash of ideals was at the root of the early
Antifederalist debates as they contradicted this position vehemently emphasizing how important a written
document was to the integrity of our nation. I believe that the Antifederalists were correct in their
3
An Old Whig. Antifederalist No. 18-20 “What Does History Teach? (Part 1)”.
4
Brutus. Antifederalist No. 84 “On the Lack of a Bill of Rights”.
5
Smith, Melancthon. Antifederalist No. 85 “Concluding Remarks: Evils Under Confederation Exaggerated;
Constitution Must be Drastically Revised Before Adoption”.
6
Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist, no. 84 “Document 7”.
4
interpretation based simply on the fallacy of man. One of the greatest aspects of our form of government
is that we are not ruled by the whims of an individual, but that supreme power is contained in a written
document.
Separation of powers
While a correct Republican form of government was necessary, and a written Bill of Rights was
immensely emphasized, the concept of a separation of powers was most central to the Antifederalist
viewpoint. Again, the proximity in time to Whig dissatisfaction with England’s royal monarchy had an
important role in establishing separation of powers in the minds of Antifederalists. First of all, the
Antifederalists were in favor of a weak executive office. Many articles were written explaining the nature
of elections, the nature of presidential terms, and the nature of presidential responsibilities. For example,
the Antifederalists argued for the president to be elected annually, allowed to serve but one term, and no
state could elect consecutive presidents.7 This system allowed for the executive office to be representative
of many states, as well as protected the people from a tyrannical reign by a particular individual.
Secondly, of the three branches, the Antifederalists were most generous to the legislative branch. While
the legislative branch was given the most privilege in theory, the Antifederalists still argued for state
sovereignty to reign supreme.8 In the minds of the Antifederalists, the legislative branch was the least
likely to be tyrannical and the most likely to carry out the will of the people. Lastly, the judicial branch
was given little responsibility by the Antifederalists. The judicial branch was not seen as an accurate
method of interpreting and enforcing legislation, but rather was seen as a loophole in the system that
could result in tyranny. Antifederalists were strong proponents of the state judiciary, and thought of short
legislative branch terms as the most efficient way to produce sound legislation. I believe that the model of
7
Martin, Luther. Antifederalist No. 71 “The Presidential Term of Office”.
8
Deliberator. Antifederalist No. 44 “What Congress Can do, What a State Can Not”.
5
the Federalists for a strong executive is faulty in comparison to the separated powers plan of the
Antifederalists.
Conclusion
Given the circumstances at the time, I would have chosen to be an Antifederalist. I believe the
Antifederalists had an accurate view of the following: how a republic should function, the need for a bill
of rights, and a proper plan for separation of powers. The Republican form of government was extremely
important to the Antifederalists as they viewed it as the only way to hear the voice of the people and avoid
a demagogic tyrant. Along with the Republican form of government, the Antifederalists are well known
for their constant cries for a written Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights ensured that power would not be
given to a tyrannical ruler, but power would lie in a written document. Finally, the fact that the
Antifederalists argued strongly for a separation of powers displayed incredible foresight. Little did they
know the importance of maintaining such a weak executive branch as our nation has remained free from
the tyranny of a powerful ruler. In a period of time dominated by fear of tyranny, the Antifederalists
argued for checks and balances that required a strict adherence to the constitution and the will of the
people. This system of checks and balances had a considerable impact on the constitution as well as the
future of our great nation.
(Word Count: 1200)
6
WORKS CITED
PRIMARY SOURCES
An Old Whig. Antifederalist No. 18-20 “What Does History Teach? (Part 1)”.
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp18-20.html.
Brutus. Antifederalist No. 84 “On the Lack of a Bill of Rights”.
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/.
Deliberator. Antifederalist No. 44 “What Congress Can do, What a State Can Not”.
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/.
Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist, no. 84 “Document 7”.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss7.html
Madison, James. Federalist No. 10 “The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic
Faction and Insurrection (continued)”. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
Martin, Luther. Antifederalist No. 71 “The Presidential Term of Office”.
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/.
Smith, Melancthon. Antifederalist No. 85 “Concluding Remarks: Evils Under Confederation
Exaggerated; Constitution Must be Drastically Revised Before
Adoption”. http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/.