The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Opponents of the U.S. Constitution
The Anti-Federalist Papers are a loose, retrospective label for a diverse body of essays, pamphlets, and speeches written by opponents of the proposed U.S. Constitution during 1787–1788. While lacking the systematic unity of the Federalist Papers, they share recurring concerns: that the new federal government would be too powerful and distant from the people; that the proposed Constitution endangered republican liberty by eroding state sovereignty; that the separation of powers and checks and balances were insufficient; that the necessary and proper and supremacy clauses would justify legislative overreach; that the absence of an explicit bill of rights invited tyranny; and that a large, consolidated republic would inevitably slide into aristocracy or monarchy. Taken together, these writings form a sustained critique of American constitutionalism at its founding and articulate a rival vision of a more decentralized, confederated republic.
At a Glance
- Author
- Anonymous authors writing under the pseudonym "Brutus" (commonly attributed to Robert Yates), George Clinton (pseudonym "Cato"), Samuel Bryan (pseudonym "Centinel"), Richard Henry Lee (pseudonym "The Federal Farmer"), Melancton Smith (possible author of some "Federal Farmer" letters), Luther Martin, Patrick Henry, James Winthrop (pseudonym "Agrippa"), Other anonymous and pseudonymous Anti-Federalist writers
- Composed
- 1787–1788
- Language
- English
- Status
- copies only
- •A consolidated national republic over an extensive territory is incompatible with genuine self-government: Anti-Federalists argue, drawing on classical republican theory and Montesquieu, that republican liberty requires small, relatively homogeneous polities where citizens can know their representatives and exercise real control; a large republic will either be governed by a distant elite or degenerate into factional conflict and eventual despotism.
- •The proposed Constitution dangerously centralizes power and undermines state sovereignty: the combination of the supremacy clause, the necessary and proper clause, and broad taxation and military powers allows the federal government to absorb or override the traditional functions and authority of the states, eroding the federal principle and local self-rule.
- •The structure of the new federal government provides inadequate safeguards against tyranny: Anti-Federalists question whether the separation of powers is real rather than merely notional, worry that the Senate and presidency will become aristocratic or quasi-monarchical institutions, and fear that the federal judiciary, appointed for life and largely unchecked, will become an oligarchic body reshaping the Constitution through expansive interpretation.
- •The absence of a bill of rights leaves essential liberties unprotected: they contend that relying on implied or structural protections is insufficient; explicit guarantees of freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, jury trial, due process, and protections against standing armies and unreasonable searches are necessary to prevent federal encroachments on individual rights and the rights of states.
- •Elections and representation under the Constitution are too remote and elitist: long terms of office, indirect modes of election (especially for the Senate and presidency), large districts, and the lack of rotation in office encourage the rise of a political class detached from the people, facilitating corruption, influence of wealthy interests, and the eventual betrayal of republican principles.
The Anti-Federalist corpus is historically significant as the primary, articulate opposition to the framing of the U.S. Constitution and as a rich repository of arguments about the dangers of concentrated political power. Their insistence on explicit rights protections directly contributed to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and their concerns over scale, representation, executive and judicial overreach, and the erosion of state and local autonomy continue to inform American constitutional debate. In the 19th and 20th centuries, strands of Anti-Federalist thought were taken up by Jeffersonian Republicans, Jacksonian democrats, advocates of states’ rights, and later critics of bureaucratic centralization, while modern constitutional scholarship has increasingly treated Anti-Federalists as serious political theorists rather than mere losers in the founding contest.
1. Introduction
The label “Anti-Federalist Papers” is a modern, retrospective term for a wide array of essays, pamphlets, and speeches written in 1787–1788 by opponents of the proposed U.S. Constitution. Unlike The Federalist Papers, these writings were never collected or authorized as a single work, but they were closely connected in purpose: to shape public opinion and influence state ratifying conventions during the Constitution’s decisive political contest.
These authors—many using classical pseudonyms such as Brutus, Cato, Centinel, Federal Farmer, and Agrippa—challenged the constitutional design emerging from the Philadelphia Convention. They questioned the consequences of consolidating power in a new national government, the adequacy of the proposed separation of powers, the nature of representation in a large republic, and the absence of an explicit bill of rights.
Later commentators have interpreted this corpus in different ways: some see a loose coalition of local interests defending state sovereignty, while others characterize it as a coherent alternative theory of republican government centered on small-scale politics and explicit protections of liberty. Modern editions and scholarship have made these writings more accessible, allowing them to be studied as a significant counterpart to Federalist thought rather than merely the losing side in the ratification debate.
2. Historical Context of the Anti-Federalist Papers
The Anti-Federalist writings emerged directly from the political conditions of the mid-1780s. Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States operated as a loose league of sovereign states with a weak central Congress. Many leaders believed this arrangement produced serious problems—chronic fiscal crises, interstate trade barriers, diplomatic weakness, and domestic unrest such as Shays’s Rebellion—but there was no consensus on how far national reform should go.
In 1787, delegates met at the Philadelphia Convention, initially charged with revising the Articles. Instead, they drafted an entirely new Constitution. The convention’s secrecy, combined with the sweeping changes it proposed, helped to fuel suspicion once the document was released in September 1787.
Ratification required approval by specially elected state conventions, creating a new kind of broad public debate. Supporters of the Constitution (Federalists) quickly organized a coordinated print campaign. In response, opponents began publishing essays questioning both the legitimacy of the Convention’s actions and the substance of the proposed frame of government.
The Anti-Federalist papers thus belong to a specific moment: the months between the publication of the Constitution and the close of the ratification struggle in 1788. They were written in a rapidly evolving context where different states ratified at different times and under different conditions, shaping both the tone and focus of local Anti-Federalist arguments.
| Context Factor | Relevance to Anti-Federalist Writings |
|---|---|
| Weakness of Articles | Framed debate over how much additional power was needed |
| Convention secrecy | Fostered charges of usurpation and elite conspiracy |
| State ratifying conventions | Made public persuasion central to constitutional politics |
| Regional economic and social differences | Produced locally inflected Anti-Federalist concerns |
3. Authors, Pseudonyms, and Composition
Anti-Federalist writings were composed by a diverse set of figures, from nationally prominent politicians to local printers and anonymous essayists. Many adopted pseudonyms, a common 18th‑century practice that also allowed writers to evoke classical republican imagery and revolutionary symbolism.
| Pseudonym | Likely Author (as commonly identified) | Distinctive Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Brutus | Often attributed to Robert Yates | Size of republic, judiciary, danger of consolidation |
| Federal Farmer | Often linked to Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith | Representation, federalism, civil liberties |
| Cato | Usually associated with George Clinton | Executive power, “elective monarchy” |
| Centinel | Typically attributed to Samuel Bryan | Popular sovereignty, corruption, Philadelphia elites |
| Agrippa | Often identified as James Winthrop | Commercial interests, regional (New England) concerns |
These essays appeared primarily in newspapers—such as the New York Journal and Pennsylvania Herald—and were frequently reprinted, excerpted, or repackaged as pamphlets. Some authors, like Patrick Henry and Luther Martin, contributed mainly through speeches in state conventions that were then reported or printed in abridged form.
The composition process was decentralized. Unlike the relatively coordinated Federalist series, Anti-Federalist essays were produced by independently minded individuals and groups, often reacting to specific local circumstances or particular Federalist arguments. Scholars disagree on how far this corpus can be treated as a unified “school” of thought: some emphasize shared themes and cross-references among writers, while others stress the heterogeneity of their social bases, policy aims, and rhetorical styles.
4. Structure, Themes, and Central Arguments
Because the Anti-Federalist writings were not planned as a single treatise, they lack a formal structure. Modern editors impose order by grouping essays topically (for example, on the legislature, executive, judiciary, or bill of rights) or by pseudonym. Nonetheless, recurring themes create an informal architecture.
Recurrent Themes
| Theme | Typical Concerns |
|---|---|
| Scale of Republic | Feasibility of republican self-rule across vast territory |
| Representation | Distance between representatives and constituents |
| Separation of Powers | Potential blending of legislative, executive, judicial functions |
| Federalism and State Sovereignty | Supremacy and necessary and proper clauses seen as threats |
| Rights and Liberties | Lack of explicit guarantees against federal encroachment |
Central arguments clustered around several claims:
- Large consolidated republics are unstable: Drawing on Montesquieu and classical republican thought, authors like Brutus argued that republican liberty could not survive in an extensive, heterogeneous territory governed by a single center.
- The proposed Constitution dangerously centralizes power: Many writers contended that the combination of taxing, military, and supremacy powers would reduce the states to mere administrative units.
- Institutional safeguards are inadequate: Critics maintained that long terms of office, indirect elections, and life-tenured judges would foster an insulated elite.
- A bill of rights is indispensable: Anti-Federalists insisted that structural protections were insufficient without explicit guarantees of core civil liberties and procedural protections.
Interpretations differ on how systematic these themes are. Some scholars argue that they form a coherent alternative constitutional vision; others view them as overlapping but situational objections arising from varied local and ideological positions.
5. Key Concepts and Famous Passages
Several concepts coined or elaborated by Anti-Federalists have become central to interpretations of the founding period.
Key Concepts
| Concept | Description |
|---|---|
| Consolidated Government | A national authority absorbing sovereignty from the states |
| Extended Republic | A large-scale republic whose feasibility was contested |
| Elective Monarchy | A presidency feared to mimic monarchical power |
Anti-Federalists often quoted and adapted European theorists such as Montesquieu but reworked these ideas for American conditions, emphasizing localism, militia-based defense, and frequent elections.
Famous Passages
Several passages are frequently cited in scholarship:
In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those
How to Cite This Entry
Use these citation formats to reference this work entry in your academic work. Click the copy button to copy the citation to your clipboard.
Philopedia. (2025). the-anti-federalist-papers-and-the-opponents-of-the-us-constitution. Philopedia. https://philopedia.com/works/the-anti-federalist-papers-and-the-opponents-of-the-us-constitution/
"the-anti-federalist-papers-and-the-opponents-of-the-us-constitution." Philopedia, 2025, https://philopedia.com/works/the-anti-federalist-papers-and-the-opponents-of-the-us-constitution/.
Philopedia. "the-anti-federalist-papers-and-the-opponents-of-the-us-constitution." Philopedia. Accessed December 11, 2025. https://philopedia.com/works/the-anti-federalist-papers-and-the-opponents-of-the-us-constitution/.
@online{philopedia_the_anti_federalist_papers_and_the_opponents_of_the_us_constitution,
title = {the-anti-federalist-papers-and-the-opponents-of-the-us-constitution},
author = {Philopedia},
year = {2025},
url = {https://philopedia.com/works/the-anti-federalist-papers-and-the-opponents-of-the-us-constitution/},
urldate = {December 11, 2025}
}