1. Highlights: Federalists v. Anti-Federalists
SS.7.C.1.8
Explain the viewpoints of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists regarding the ratification of the Constitution and inclusion of a bill of rights.
Terri Susan Fine, Ph.D.
Content Specialist, Florida Joint Center for Citizenship

2. The Federalists, Anti-Federalists and a Bill of Rights
It is a common misconception that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were united in their efforts and desires to move past the Articles of Confederation and form a federal system that would:
Protect the nation from foreign and internal aggressors.
Unite the nation in their efforts to experience representative democracy.
Create a government based on separation of powers, checks and balances and federalism.
Read the first paragraph.
-Remember, the articles of confederation were in place for 11 years after the colonist declared independence. Every single person that attended the constitutional convention, was a person that was living under the articles of confederation. This notion that the u.s constitution, by replacing the A.O.C, meant that the people as a whole supported the A.O.C is a misconception. In fact there was a lot of conflict on how to make it work.
We need to be careful, in assuming, those individuals, who were present at the writing and signing of the u.s constitution all supported the u.s constitution in its final form.
The designers of the constitution was to….protect nation..(look at slide)

3. Perspectives among Attendees at the 1787 Constitutional Convention
Three Dimensions:
A. Retain the Articles of Confederation with some modification to address the concerns that weakened the Articles of Confederation.
B. Support a restructuring of government that would shift power from the states to a shared power system between the national and state governments.
C. Support returning to status as British subjects.
These are the 3 different perspectives:
Keep A.O.C with some modifications. Same state centered government system. Address the weaknesses.
Too many problems, only way to protect the country is to re-structure the government in a way, that would shift the power from the states to a shared power system, between the national and state governments. This is the federal system.
Go back to being a colonist. Return to life as a British subject.

4. The Dominant Conflict
The dominant conflict at the convention was between the Federalists (those supporting a new federal system) and the Anti-Federalists (those who wanted to retain the structure of the Articles of Confederation). One of the key dimensions of conflict was whether the new federal constitution should include a listing of rights that protected individuals from government abuse of power. The resolution of this conflict was achieved with the Bill of Rights.
Those who believed that going back to life, as British subjects, where a very clear minority. There beliefs did not represent the dominant conflict of the constitutional convention, but it is important to know they were there.
The dominant conflict were between the federalist, those who supported new federal system, and the Anti-federalist. (Read slide)
Anti federalist wanted to keep structure of the A.O.C which means they wanted to keep the power at a state level, and thus, keeping the power closer to the people. This concept of keeping the power close to the people played a very big roll in the discussion.
One of the key dimensions of conflict was whether the new federal constitution should include a listing of rights that protected individuals from government abuse of power. Remember, its only 1787, 11 years since declaring independence. People still had a fear, everyone there remembered what life was like as British subjects, so everyone was deeply concerned. Feared abuse of power, since they all experienced that as British subjects.
Concept of Bill of rights achieved.

5. Key Arguments Opposing the New Federal Constitution
The group that opposed the new federal Constitution was called the Anti-Federalists, who believed: The Constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments. The Constitution lacked a specific enumeration of rights which was needed in order to protect the people from the national government. The “necessary and proper” clause (also called the “elastic clause”) gave too much power to Congress.
Read Slide.

6. The Addition of a Bill of Rights as Compromise
The most effective argument presented by the Anti-Federalists was the lack of a specific enumeration of rights. Americans feared that the newly formed and empowered national government might withhold those rights. The lack of a bill of rights became the centerpiece of the Anti-Federalists’ arguments against the new federal Constitution.
Bill of rights compromise introduced. Anti-Federalist suggested that one of the most effective ways to address their concerns was a list of rights.
Inclusion of bill of rights addressed their concerns.

7. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists through a Contemporary Lens
The core concern between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists was that the federal government would not protect individual rights. It was the states, being close to the people, who the Anti-Federalists believed could protect the people’s rights because the government was close to the people. The Bill of Rights that was eventually added to the U.S. Constitution as enumerated (listed) individual rights. What about the states? The Tenth Amendment reads as follows: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.