10 Famous Anti-Federalists and Their Arguments Against the U.S. Constitution

10 Famous Anti-Federalists and Their Arguments Against the U.S. Constitution

When we think back to the ratification of the US Constitution, we tend to see it as an inevitable step toward forming a more perfect union. However, the truth is that bitter opposition and dissent greeted the proposed new framework of American government. I should know – as a prominent lawyer and politician at the Massachusetts ratifying convention, I vocally criticized the Constitution’s consolidation of power.  Join me on an exploration of 10 famous figures like myself who constituted the Anti-Federalist movement. Men and women who dared to question the founding principles enshrined by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and other ardent Constitutional supporters. Our impassioned arguments against ratification centered around defending individual liberty from the tyranny of centralized authority. Regardless of the final outcome, it’s vital to understand perspectives like ours that sought to temper federal power in the bold experiment of American democracy.

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1788 was a contentious process, with passionate arguments on both sides. The Anti-Federalists opposed the new Constitution for a variety of reasons. Here are 10 famous Anti-Federalists and a summary of their arguments against ratification.

1.Patrick Henry – Tyranny and Loss of Liberty

Patrick Henry. George Bagby Matthews (1857 – 1943), after Thomas Sully (1783-1872), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The proposed Constitution greatly alarmed well-known Virginia politician Patrick Henry, who thought it would breed despotism and abuse of power. The hard-won rights and civil liberties that he and other patriots had just recently secured after years of bloody revolutionary struggle against Britain would undoubtedly be undermined, Henry fervently argued in his speeches and writings, given the strong centralized government, elevated presidency, aristocratic Senate, and unchecked federal judiciary. He argues that the nation’s basic ideals are completely broken by centralizing power in a powerful federal apparatus of government that is located so far away from the people. Henry therefore fought assiduously to include a comprehensive Bill of Rights in order to expressly limit federal power and protect state sovereignty as well as representation of local interests from the overarching control of detached central planners in the Capitol.

2. Samuel Adams – Consolidation of Power

Revolutionary firebrand Massachusetts senator Samuel Adams vehemently disagreed with the Constitution’s attempt to centralize federal authority. He fervently maintained that because state governments were closer by both politically and physically, they made far better defenders of local citizens’ rights. Adams was deeply concerned that there would inevitably be a worrying rift between national lawmakers and the people they claimed to represent due to the new federal capital’s great distance from the majority of states. He argued that giving power to a distant, centralized government that is unable to understand regional concerns would weaken state sovereignty and autonomy. Adams therefore fervently advocated for the urgent adoption of a Bill of Rights in order to constitutionally safeguard state sovereignty against encroaching federal intervention and overreach.

3. George Mason – Lack of Term Limits and Bill of Rights

George Mason. After John Hesselius, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Richie Three delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including George Mason, adamantly refused to sign the final document because they strongly disagreed with several of its most important provisions. As a prominent opponent of federalism in Virginia, Mason vehemently opposed the idea that the president and other powerful federal positions should have term limits because he thought this would result in the establishment of a permanent, elitist political aristocracy. He also made a strong case that in the absence of clearly defined civil liberties protected by the constitution from governmental interference with fundamental individual rights, citizens would be more susceptible to oppression at the hands of powerful but unaccountable politicians. Mason thus steadfastly pushed for the inclusion of a comprehensive Bill of Rights that listed prized liberties like freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to due process.

4. Henry Lee – End of State Sovereignty

Richard Henry Lee, a well-known anti-federalist author, hated how the Constitution weakened state sovereignty and independence. Local governments, in his opinion, were the most receptive to popular will. Lee wrote that “one government and general legislation alone can never extend equal benefits to all parts of the United States,” indicating his preference for smaller confederacies over centralized authority. Lee, one of the first senators from Virginia, would later advocate for the Bill of Rights’ adoption in order to list fundamental individual liberties and limitations on the authority of the federal government. Despite his objections, the Constitution was ratified, and Lee’s support of states’ rights and decentralized government would have a lasting impact on federalism discussions. Many in the South would cite Lee’s writings to counter what they saw as federal overreach on state sovereignty.

5. Elbridge Gerry – Excessive Federal Power

Elbridge Gerry.James Bogle, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Elbridge Gerry was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention initially, but he declined to sign the final text because he felt it gave the newly formed federal government far too much unrestrained and ambiguous power. He vehemently objected to the necessary and proper clause, claiming that it was unduly ambiguous and essentially granted the federal government unrestricted power over state sovereignty. Gerry vehemently contended that this would eventually allow the federal regime to infringe upon civil liberties and unchecked consolidate power. As a result, he loudly urged the immediate ratification of the addition of a Bill of Rights to clearly codify and constitutionally guarantee fundamental individual rights and restrain the worrisome growth of federal power over both states and citizens.

6. Thomas Jefferson – Violates Spirit of the Revolution

Thomas Jefferson wrote to other statesmen, including James Madison, expressing his strong and passionate reservations about the Constitution, despite not being actively involved in the ratification debates. The presidency was sharply criticized by Jefferson, who saw it as fundamentally subverting the republican ideals of the recently won American Revolution and having an overly monarchical nature. Jefferson fervently advocated for the immediate insertion of a Bill of Rights and stringent term limits on the presidency in order to avert the emergence of a new American tyranny while serving as minister in France during the turbulent ratification debates back home.

7. Robert Yates – Judicial Tyranny

Robert Yates. Ted Van Pelt, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Judge Robert Yates of New York wrote widely read and passionately argued compelling dissenting essays under the pen name Brutus, claiming that the dangerously ambiguous proposed Constitution would result in judicial tyranny. Brutus was deeply concerned that the Supreme Court was given nearly regal and unaccountable broad power to interpret fundamental constitutional issues as they saw fit, with no real checks and balances on its authority. Additionally, he fiercely opposed the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution, which gave Congress virtually unrestricted authority over states. He claimed this violated state sovereignty and gave Congress the ability to enact unfair laws that meddled in local affairs at their own discretion and with very questionable justification.

8. Luther Martin – Imperfect Separation of Powers

Luther Martin, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, objected to signing the final draught because he believed it did not clearly divide the powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Martin claimed that the president had undue control over Congress because of his appointments and veto power. Additionally, he issued a warning that the Supreme Court might extend its reach and alter American politics and society in ways that the country’s founders had not anticipated or planned. Martin was right when he expressed concerns about the possible concentration of power in the presidency and judiciary. Both branches have occasionally overreached their original jurisdiction to exercise control over social issues and policymaking that is not expressly granted by the Constitution. Although Martin objected, the Constitution was ratified without his consent, despite his opposing viewpoint offered meaningful insight into weaknesses in the system of checks and balances.

9. John DeWitt – Direct Taxation

During the ratification period, Massachusetts’s most prominent anti-federalist writer was John DeWitt. DeWitt, who wrote under the pen name The Free Republican, hated the parts of the Constitution that permitted standing armies and direct taxation in times of peace. DeWitt thought that in order to prevent financial dependency from skewing their decisions, representatives ought to be compensated by their states rather than the federal government. Furthermore, DeWitt believed that in order to protect states’ interests at the federal level, state governments should select U.S. Senators rather than holding direct popular elections. Additionally, he believed that term limits were necessary to prevent the concentration of power because they prevented Congressmen from gaining undue influence over their districts through perpetual reelection. Even though DeWitt was unable to stop ratification in Massachusetts, her writings conveyed concerns about federal overreach that are still relevant in discussions about states’ rights today.

10. Mercy Otis Warren – Lack of Representation and Accountability

Mercy Otis Warren. John Singleton Copley, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Mercy Otis Warren, a well-known feminist activist, contended that the presidency and the Senate were inherently too undemocratic. She believed that because state legislatures appointed senators to six-year terms, there was a lack of public representation and accountability. Warren also thought that the government’s periodic meetings in Congress further alienated the populace. In order to allow for more direct public oversight, she advocated for recall laws, shorter terms, and regular elections. Warren further argued that the president’s authority over foreign policy and military leadership was concentrated in a single office with insufficient constitutional checks and balances.

The vocal opposition of the Anti-Federalists resulted in the adoption of the Bill of Rights, which explicitly protects individual liberties, even though they were ultimately unable to stop ratification. Their disapproval influenced the current American discussion concerning state vs federal rights.