# The Anti-Federalist Papers The Anti-Federalist Papers are a collection of essays, speeches, and pamphlets written between 1787 and 1788 in opposition to ratification of the proposed Constitution. Unlike the [[Federalist Papers]], which were a coordinated series by three identified authors, the Anti-Federalist writings were produced by dozens of authors under various pseudonyms — Brutus, Centinel, Federal Farmer, Cato, and others — with no central coordination. They lost the ratification fight but won one of its most important consequences: the [[Bill of Rights]]. The Anti-Federalists are the losers' history of the American founding, and like most losers' histories, they got more right than the winners wanted to admit. ## The Principal Authors **Brutus** (likely Robert Yates, a New York judge) wrote the most intellectually formidable Anti-Federalist essays. His Brutus No. 1 is the direct counterpart to [[Federalist No. 10]] — where Madison argues that a large republic controls faction, Brutus argues that a large republic *cannot* sustain republican government because representatives will be too distant from the people to genuinely represent them. His essays on the judiciary (Brutus Nos. 11-15) anticipated the expansion of judicial power with remarkable accuracy, warning that federal courts would interpret the Constitution's "necessary and proper" and "supremacy" clauses to expand federal authority far beyond enumerated powers. **Centinel** (likely Samuel Bryan of Pennsylvania) focused on the absence of a bill of rights and the dangers of concentrated power. His essays emphasized that the proposed Constitution lacked the structural safeguards — a bill of rights, rotation in office, a council to check the president — that republican theory required. **Federal Farmer** (authorship disputed — possibly Melancton Smith or Richard Henry Lee) wrote the most moderate Anti-Federalist critiques, focusing on practical concerns: the insufficient representation in Congress, the dangers of a standing army, the need for explicit protection of civil liberties. The Federal Farmer's letters were among the most widely read Anti-Federalist texts. [[Patrick Henry]] — the most famous Anti-Federalist — was the leading voice at the Virginia ratification convention, where he argued passionately against ratification. His objections focused on the absence of a bill of rights, the dangers of the presidency ("it squints toward monarchy"), and the potential for federal power to overwhelm state sovereignty. ## The Core Arguments ### Too Much Central Power The Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution created a national government so powerful it would inevitably absorb the states and destroy the federal balance. The "necessary and proper" clause and the "supremacy" clause were particular targets — the Anti-Federalists warned that these open-ended grants of power would be interpreted to justify federal authority over virtually any subject. Two centuries of [[Commerce Clause]] expansion proved them substantially correct. ### No Bill of Rights The most politically potent Anti-Federalist argument was the absence of a bill of rights. Hamilton's response in [[Federalist No. 84]] — that a bill of rights was unnecessary and dangerous under a government of enumerated powers — did not persuade the public. The Anti-Federalists' demand for explicit protection of speech, press, religion, assembly, and criminal procedure rights produced the first ten amendments. The Bill of Rights exists because the Anti-Federalists insisted on it. ### The Presidency as Elected Monarchy Anti-Federalist writers repeatedly warned that the proposed presidency was too powerful, too similar to the British monarchy the Revolution had overthrown. [[Patrick Henry]] called it a government that "squints toward monarchy." The concerns focused on the president's commander-in-chief powers, the treaty power, the pardon power, the veto power, and the absence of a mandatory council of advisors to check presidential discretion. The Anti-Federalists predicted that the presidency would accumulate power over time and that the constitutional checks on executive authority would prove insufficient. ### The Federal Judiciary as Unchecked Power Brutus's essays on the judiciary (Nos. 11-15) are the most prescient Anti-Federalist writings. He warned that federal judges, armed with life tenure and the power to interpret the Constitution, would expand federal authority through interpretation. The "necessary and proper" clause and the "supremacy" clause would be the vehicles. There would be no appeal from their decisions. The judiciary would become, in practice, the most powerful branch — precisely because it could define the scope of the other branches' powers through constitutional interpretation. Hamilton responded in [[Federalist No. 78]] that the judiciary was the "least dangerous branch" because it had neither force nor will. History sided with Brutus. ### Standing Army Fears The Anti-Federalists argued strenuously against granting the federal government power to raise and maintain a standing army. Standing armies, in republican theory, were instruments of tyranny — they allowed the executive to enforce its will by force rather than consent. The Anti-Federalists pointed to the British model, where standing armies had been used against the colonists themselves. They advocated reliance on state militias as the primary military force. ## Why They Lost the Ratification Fight The Anti-Federalists lost for several reasons beyond the intellectual merits of their arguments. The Federalists were better organized, had the prestige of [[George Washington]] and [[Benjamin Franklin]] behind them, controlled most of the major newspapers, and had a concrete *proposal* (the Constitution) against which the Anti-Federalists could only offer criticisms and the status quo of the failing [[Articles of Confederation]]. It is easier to rally support for a specific plan than for objections to one. The ratification process itself favored the Federalists: special ratifying conventions rather than state legislatures, sequential rather than simultaneous ratification (allowing early victories to build momentum), and the political reality that the Articles of Confederation were failing badly enough that *something* had to change. ## Why They Won the Bill of Rights The Anti-Federalists' political leverage was strongest in the large, important states — Virginia and New York — where ratification was genuinely in doubt. The Federalists' promise to add a bill of rights as the first order of business under the new government was essential to securing ratification in these states. [[James Madison]], initially skeptical of a bill of rights, came to support it partly out of genuine conviction and partly out of political necessity. The first ten amendments, ratified in 1791, represent the Anti-Federalists' most lasting victory. ## The RWKB Angle ### Selective Quotation by Modern Conservatives Modern conservatives selectively quote the Anti-Federalists when it suits their purposes — particularly on federal overreach, states' rights, and the [[Second Amendment]] (the Anti-Federalist fear of standing armies is the historical context for the militia clause). But they systematically ignore the Anti-Federalist warnings that are inconvenient to the modern right-wing project. The Anti-Federalists warned about executive power becoming monarchical — modern conservatives have embraced the [[Unitary Executive Theory]] and presidential maximalism. The Anti-Federalists warned about standing armies — modern conservatives champion the largest peacetime military establishment in world history. The Anti-Federalists warned about federal courts becoming unchecked — modern conservatives have pursued judicial capture through the [[Federalist Society]] precisely because they want courts to be powerful enough to override democratic legislation. The selective reading reveals the instrumental nature of the appeal to founding-era authority: the Anti-Federalists are invoked when they support the desired conclusion and ignored when they contradict it. ### The Anti-Federalists Got the Presidency Right The Anti-Federalist warning about executive power has proven more accurate than the Federalist response. The presidency has accumulated power far beyond what the Constitution's text grants, through a combination of congressional delegation, wartime emergency, executive orders, signing statements, and the sheer institutional momentum of the executive branch. Patrick Henry's fear that the presidency "squints toward monarchy" was hyperbolic in 1788 but increasingly descriptive by 2025. The Trump administration represents the Anti-Federalists' nightmare scenario: an executive who treats constitutional constraints as suggestions, who uses the pardon power for political allies, who claims inherent authority to override statutory law, and who faces a Congress unwilling to exercise its checking function. The Federalists promised that [[Checks and Balances]] would prevent this outcome. The Anti-Federalists predicted those checks would prove insufficient. The Anti-Federalists were right. ### Brutus Got the Judiciary Right Brutus's prediction that the federal judiciary would expand federal power through constitutional interpretation has been confirmed by two centuries of experience. The "necessary and proper" clause and the "supremacy" clause have been interpreted exactly as Brutus warned — as vehicles for expanding federal authority beyond the enumerated powers. Hamilton's assurance that the judiciary was the "least dangerous branch" has been thoroughly refuted by the reality of judicial supremacy in American constitutional law. ## See Also - [[Federalist Papers]] — The other side of the ratification debate - [[Federalist No. 10]] — Madison's response to Anti-Federalist concerns about large republics - [[Federalist No. 78]] — Hamilton's response to Brutus on the judiciary - [[Federalist No. 84]] — Hamilton's response to the demand for a bill of rights - [[Patrick Henry]] — The most prominent Anti-Federalist voice - [[Separation of Powers]] — The structural principle both sides debated - [[Checks and Balances]] — The mechanisms the Anti-Federalists warned would prove insufficient - [[Popular Sovereignty]] — The legitimacy principle both sides claimed