Anti-Federalists and the Bill of Rights: Origins Explained

Introduction: A Debate That Shaped a Nation

The Anti-Federalist vs. Federalist argument is one of the most heated political debates the United States has ever seen. Though the debate itself was relatively brief — lasting from October 1787, when the final version of the Constitution was approved by the first Constitutional Convention, to June 1788, when Virginia became the first state to ratify it — the ideas and standards set forth by both camps, as well as by more moderate politicians, are expressed throughout the foundational documents of the United States.

Most notably, the Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments to the Constitution, stands as a clear example of the compromises and victories won by both sides. This influence can be seen elsewhere in the founding documents as well. Understanding this legacy and demonstrating it through careful analysis of the documentation that survives from this very public and heated debate is an essential responsibility for any student of American history.

Even today, the debate retains much the same importance that Anti-Federalist writer Brutus conveyed in his first known address to the country on the subject:

"When the public is called to investigate and decide upon a question in which not only the present members of the community are deeply interested, but upon which the happiness and misery of generations yet unborn is in great measure suspended, the benevolent mind cannot help feeling itself peculiarly interested in the result."

Brutus and many others expressed their personal and political fears with a well-articulated zeal that cannot be mistaken. Their own lives, the lives of their children, and even their grandchildren could be forever affected by what was, however well-planned and well-intended, an uncertain outcome. Whether the effects proved good or bad rested in the hands of these new lawmakers.

Anti-Federalist Concerns About Central Power

Within the public arena — chiefly notable newspapers, which served as the television of the time — hundreds of documents and letters appeared pronouncing the validity of arguments both in favor of a strong federal government and in favor of a weaker one. Both sides argued valid points grounded in their understanding of the history and politics they had witnessed in their own lifetimes or those of their fathers.

Yet some of the most telling arguments were made by the Anti-Federalists, namely DeWitt, Brutus, and Cato. Reduced to a simple summary, Anti-Federalists believed that a strong central government — on paper and in practice — would lead to a dominant central authority that would leach power from the states and from individuals. This concern was rooted in the historical experience of watching precisely that process repeat itself throughout Western civilization, particularly in Europe:

"Rulers have the same propensities as other men; they are as likely to use the power with which they are vested for private purposes, and to the injury and oppression of those over whom they are placed, as individuals in a state of nature are to injure and oppress one another. It is therefore as proper that bounds should be set to their authority, as that government should have at first been instituted to restrain private injuries. This principle, which seems so evidently founded in the reason and nature of things, is confirmed by universal experience."

Federalists, by contrast, believed that a weak central government would prove ineffective and useless in times of national need, and could not make sound decisions about national interests if constantly in conflict with state and local governmental entities. Yet most importantly, the Anti-Federalists demanded careful examination of not only motive but fact and future consequence before decisions of such gravity were made:

"Convention from the different States for that sole purpose hath been appointed of their most respectable citizens — respectable indeed I may say for their equity, for their literature, and for their love of their country. Their proceedings are now before us for our approbation. The eagerness with which they have been received by certain classes of our fellow citizens naturally forces upon us this question: Are we to adopt this Government, without an examination?"

The First Amendment and Freedom of the Press

Probably the most effective way to judge the correlation between the Anti-Federalist Papers and the actual Bill of Rights is to analyze each amendment for the messages it conveys about the Anti-Federalist cause. The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In the writings of John DeWitt there is clear evidence of this understanding:

"Civil liberty, in all countries, hath promoted by a free discussion of publick measures, and the conduct of publick men. The FREEDOM OF THE PRESS hath, in consequence thereof, been esteemed one of its safe guards. That freedom gives the right, at all times, to every citizen to lay his sentiments, in a decent manner, before the people."

Though DeWitt speaks specifically of freedom of the press, his letters make clear that protecting such freedoms for the individual is integral to the success of any national government. Without that protection, each citizen loses the ability to speak freely and to remain fully informed about the circumstances and decisions they must understand in order to vote according to their own convictions.

Conclusion: The Lasting Legacy of the Debate

A debate lasting little more than one year became one of the most fundamental statements in the history of the United States. The legacy of these wise men's words became a permanent part of the Constitution. With their identities often unknown, these writers penned proof of the strength of a free press and of the many other rights they argued for so passionately. It is also clear that many more years of struggle would have surrounded the securing of rights we now take for granted.

Forethought brought wisdom to the formation of government. The founders were given the opportunity to revisit and refine their decisions, and the people were offered a clear and informed view of just how serious their own responsibilities were — both in shaping their government and in fulfilling their duties as citizens within it.

References

Constitution Society Homepage. "Chronology of the Pro- and Anti-Federalist Papers and how they related to one another and to key events." http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm

Borden, Morton. The Antifederalist Papers. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1965.

Brutus. "To the Citizens of the State of New-York." New York Journal, 18 October 1787. Constitution Society Homepage. http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus01.htm

Brutus. "To the Citizens of the State of New-York." New York Journal, 1 November 1787. Constitution Society Homepage. http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus01.htm

DeWitt, John. "To the Free Citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." Boston American Herald, 22 October 1787. Constitution Society Homepage. http://www.constitution.org/afp/dewitt01.htm

DeWitt, John. "To the Free Citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." Boston American Herald, 5 November 1787. Constitution Society Homepage. http://www.constitution.org/afp/dewitt03.htm

Cato. "To the Citizens of the State of New York." New-York Journal, 22 November 1787. Constitution Society Homepage. http://www.constitution.org/afp/cato_05.htm

"Bill of Rights." Thomas Legislative Information on the Internet. http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html