A history of the top Antifederalist apprehensions about the Constituiton. The Antifederalists, also known as opponents of enemies of the Constitution, brought up several claims that were disputed by the Federalist supporters of the document. Among them was the lack of a Bill of Rights, the thought that the federal government would overwhelm and usurp authority from the states, and that the general judiciary would be too powerful. These debates were of paramount importance.

1. Arguments Against the Constitution
(1787-1790)

2. Claim: The Document Lacks a Bill of Rights
• Opponents warned that the document
would allow government to seize liberty and
abridge natural rights.
• Patrick Henry warned: “without a bill of
rights, you will exhibit the most absurd
thing to mankind that ever the world saw
— government that has abandoned all its
powers — the powers of direct taxation,
the sword, and the purse. You have
disposed of them to Congress, without a
bill of rights — without check, limitation,
or control. And still you have checks and
guards; still you keep barriers — pointed
where? Pointed against your weakened,
prostrated, enervated state government!
You have a bill of rights to defend you
against the state government, which is
bereaved of all power, and yet you have
none against Congress, though in full and
exclusive possession of all power!”

3. How Federalists Disputed This Claim
• James Wilson, Pennsylvania State House Yard Speech: “This distinction being
recognized, will furnish an answer to those who think the omission of a bill of rights
a defect in the proposed constitution; for it would have been superfluous and
absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should
enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested, either by the intention or the
act that has brought the body into existence.”
• Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist #85: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights,
in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only
unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They
would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account,
would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare
that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”
• Federalist friends of the Constitution insisted that a Bill of Rights was “superfluous”
and unnecessary – many states already had bills of rights
• Federalists claimed Bill of Rights would infer that government had such powers in the
first place, a “dangerous” view.

4. Claim: The Judiciary Would Be Too Powerful
• Some, including George Mason, warned
that the general judiciary would usurp
authority of the state courts.
• George Mason: “There is no limitation. It
goes to every thing. The inferior Courts are
to be as numerous as Congress may think
proper. They are to be of whatever nature
they please.”
• John Marshall answered: “The objection,
which was made by the Honorable member
who was first up yesterday (Mason) has
been so fully refuted, that it is not worth
while to notice it.”
• Mason was told that his words had not been
an accurate synopsis of judicial power.
• When Mason suggested that the judiciary
would attempt to settle state disputes, he
was told that it wouldn’t.

5. Claim: It Takes All Power From the States
• Brutus #1: “This government is to possess
absolute and uncontrollable powers,
legislative, executive and judicial, with
respect to every object to which it
extends…all that is reserved for the
individual States must very soon be
annihilated.”
• An Old Whig #4: “It is beyond a doubt that
the new federal constitution, if adopted,
will in a great measure destroy, if it do
not totally annihilate, the separate
governments of the several states.”

6. How Federalists Disputed This Claim
• Edmund Randolph, Richmond Convention,
answered: “If I did believe, with the
honorable gentleman, that all power not
expressly retained was given up by the
people, I would detest this government.
But I never thought so, nor do I now.”
• James Madison answered “We shall be
convinced that the general will never
destroy the individual governments.”
• The Federalist #45: “The powers
delegated by the proposed Constitution to
the federal government, are few and
defined. Those which are to remain in the
State governments are numerous and
indefinite.”

7. Other Allegations
• That the executive will be as a “military king” –claimed by
Philadelphiensis
• There was good reason to hold such trepidations, as Alexander Hamilton had
proposed a particularly kingly executive in the Philadelphia Convention
• Fear that the President would emulate the British model
•
Claim that the problems facing states were being overblown
•
•
•
Many claimed only rebellions (Shays Rebellion) and fiat currency were
the only real problems
Many thought problems were being overblown by people like
Hamilton and Madison
Claim that the representatives don’t have the power to create
new government framework
•
•
Cited that the purpose of convention was to amend Articles of
Confederation
Believed a “runaway” convention had gotten out of control

8. How Antifederalist Concerns Were Placated
• Inclusion of a Bill of Rights
• Amendments were already recommended by the ratifying states
• 10th Amendment, first on the list of most states, reiterated state power
• Federal Judiciary could only adjudicate a small number of cases,
mostly involving disputes between states and cases where the United
States is a party
• Three states instituted explicit “resumption clauses” which
made it clear that if power was usurped, it could be rightfully
taken back by the state
• New York – “That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever
it shall become necessary to their happiness”
• Rhode Island – Same text as New York’s
• Virginia – “the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the
United States, be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or
oppression”

9. Summary
• The Constitution would have never been ratified by the
several sovereign states without such assurances by
proponents of the Constitution.
• Each substantial argument against the Constitution
was refuted strongly, with assurances that it gave a
limited subset of powers to the general government
• It has only been through reinterpretation and political
desire that such tenets have become muddled
• Patriots need to spread and disseminate the original
understanding of the Constitution as ratified

10. Contact
• Website: www.davebenner.com
• Twitter: @crushitson