Anti-Federalists, The

"The anti-federalists," notes Ralph Ketcham in the introduction to a popular edition of their writings:

[Looked] to the Classical idealization of the small, pastoral republic where virtuous, self-reliant citizens managed their own affairs and shunned the power and glory of empire. To them, the victory in the American Revolution meant not so much the big chance to become a wealthy world power, but rather the opportunity to achieve a geniunely republican polity, far from the greed, lust for power, and tyranny that had generally characterized human society. ¹

In many ways, the group has been misnamed. After all, federalism refers to the system of decentralized government. As Mel Bradford notes, in the Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry, the leader of the Anti-Federalists "conjured up an image of the Constitution as it might become [and] much of his prophecy has been confirmed." ²

In eighteenth-century usage, a federation was a league between sovereign states. The federal government could relate only to the state governments; it could not deal directly with the individual citizens of those states This arrangement characterized the Articles of Confederation. Hence, Congress could not impose taxes on individuals directly but had to petition the states for money. In February 1787 Congress called a convention for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." ³

Amidst the call for constitutional reform, an opposition of republicans arose to the nationalists, and they sought to guide and steer in such reform, so as to preserve the federal principle. Almost, the first thing nationalists succeeding in doing to legitimize their cause was call themselves Federalists, and misname their adversaries Anti-Federalists. In the context of Madison's Federalist #39, no one stood more for the federal principle, as opposed to the national principle than the Anti-Federalists.

Though, the Anti-Federalists lost in their efforts to stifle the adoption of the Constitution, they profoundly shaped the outcome of constitutional debates to frame and ratify that instrument. By the time of adoption of the Constitution, the original party of nationalists had made insurmountable concessions to states' rights. The mistrust of remote power prompted the activism of the anti-federalists which later secured the U.S. Bill of Rights in 1791. "Mason and the anti-federalists were not opposed in 1788 to knitting the Union together well," notes historian Clyde Wilson, "nor did they reject the achievement represented by the Constitution, to the writing of which Mason himself had contributed significantly. But they believed it needed some final perfection of design, the lack of which would leave it dangerously mishappen in the direction of centralism." ⁴

The Anti-Federalists saw the primary task of government as securing individual liberty. They also recognized that the cultivation of republican virtues was necessary for liberty, and believed that such cultivation would fare better in a small, homogeneous republic. Agrippa asserted that "no extensive empire can be governed upon republican principles, and such a government will degenerate into a despotism unless it be made up of a confederacy of smaller states..." Brutus argued that only in a small republic could representation be meaningful: "That very term, representative, implies, that the person or body chosen for this purpose, should resemble those who appoint them... One man, or a few men, cannot possibly represent the feelings, opinions, and characters of a great multitude." Some Anti-Federalists even acknowledged that states could become so large as to lose their republican character, and in such cases should be divided into smaller units. ⁵

The Anti-Federalists derived their conception of a federal republic or confederation theory from Montesquieu, who wrote in The Spirit of the Laws: "It is in the nature of a republic to have only a small territory; otherwise it can scarcely continue to exist." Large republics were simply too complex to "put in the hands of a citizen," because the common good would likely become "sacrificed to a thousand considerations," but in a small republic the commong good interest would be "better felt, better known," as it "lies nearer to each citizen." Therefore, the solution lied not in extension of the republic or conjoining republics into an expansive unitary republic, but rather to confederate with other republics for common protection, and the benefits of economic, customs and trade union. ⁶

The Anti-Federalist camp believed that their opposition exaggerated the difficulty of financing the government, under the Articles of Confederation, and Federal Farmer observed that the states had paid $24 million of the $36 million in requisitions over the preceding decade. He asked, "...ought we not carefully to enquire, whether that delinquency is to be imputed solely to the nature of requisitions?" or whether it should be blamed on two other causes: "first, an opinion... that the requisitions for domestic interest have not been founded on just principles; and secondly... that the government itself... has departed from the constitutional system."⁷ For this reason, many of the Anti-Federalists favored prudence on the part of the states in managing their financial affairs. Though, the Anti-Federalists fully acknowledged the defects in the Confederation as it stood, and favored reform in the requisition structure rather than create a central government with the power to tax directly.

In Federalist #4, John Jay proclaimed the Federalist view about dealing with the threat of foreign aggression:

Leave America divided into thirteen governments... — what armies could they raise and pay — what fleets could they ever hope to have? If one was attacked, would the others fly to its succor, and spend their blood and money in its defense? Would there be no danger of their being flattered into neutrality by its specious promises, or seduced by a too great fondness for peace to decline hazarding their tranquillity and present safety for the sake of neighbors, of whom perhaps they have been jealous, and whose importance they are content to see diminished? Although such conduct would not be wise, it would, nevertheless, be natural. The history of the states of Greece, and of other countries, abounds with such instances, and it is not improbable that what has so often happened would, under similar circumstances, happen again.

Brutus believed that Jay's fears were unwarranted and excessive: "We have no powerful nation in our neighborhood... Some of the European nations, it is true, have provinces bordering upon us, but from these we have nothing to apprehend; if any of them should attack us, they will have to transport their armies across the Atlantic, at immense expense, while we should defend ourselves in our own country, which abounds with every necessary of life." When Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia envisioned the perils of the states warring in perpetuity absent a Union of states under the 1787 Constitution, Anti-Federalist statesman William Grayson sarcastically derided him:

Pennsylvania and Maryland are to fall upon us from the north, like the Goths and Vandals of old; the Algerines, whose flat-sided vessels never came farther than Madeira, are to fill the Chesapeake with mighty fleets, and to attack us on our front; the Indians are to invade us with numerous armies on our rear, in order to convert our cleared lands into hunting grounds; and the Carolinians from the south (mounted on alligators, I presume), are to come and destroy our cornfields, and eat up our little children! ⁸