Which did the Federalists believe was the best way to protect individual rights?

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Over the next few months we will explore through a series of eLessons the debate over ratification of the United States Constitution as discussed in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. We look forward to exploring this important debate with you!

One of the great debates in American history was over the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-1788. Those who supported the Constitution and a stronger national republic were known as Federalists. Those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution in favor of small localized government were known as Anti-Federalists. Both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were concerned with the preservation of liberty, however, they disagreed over whether or not a strong national government would preserve or eventually destroy the liberty of the American people. Today, it is easy to accept that the prevailing side was right and claim that, had you been alive, you would have certainly supported ratifying the Constitution. However, in order to develop a deeper understanding of the ideological foundations upon which our government is built, it is important to analyze both the Federalist and Ant-Federalist arguments.

The Anti-Federalists were not as organized as the Federalists. They did not share one unified position on the proper form of government. However, they did unite in their objection to the Constitution as it was proposed for ratification in 1787. The Anti-Federalists argued against the expansion of national power. They favored small localized governments with limited national authority as was exercised under the Articles of Confederation. They generally believed a republican government was only possible on the state level and would not work on the national level. Therefore, only a confederacy of the individual states could protect the nation’s liberty and freedom. Another, and perhaps their most well-known concern, was over the lack of a bill of rights. Most Anti-Federalists feared that without a bill of rights, the Constitution would not be able to sufficiently protect the rights of individuals and the states. Perhaps the strongest voice for this concern was that of George Mason. He believed that state bills of right would be trumped by the new constitution, and not stand as adequate protections for citizens’ rights. It was this concern that ultimately led to the passing of the bill of rights as a condition for ratification in New York, Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.

The Federalists, primarily led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, believed that establishing a large national government was not only possible, but necessary to “create a more perfect union” by improving the relationship among the states. Until this point, the common belief was that a republic could only function efficiently it was small and localized. The Federalists challenged this belief and claimed that a strong national republic would better preserve the individual liberties of the people. By extending the sphere of the republic, individual and minority rights would be better protected from infringement by a majority. The federalists also wanted to preserve the sovereignty and structure of the states. To do so, they advocated for a federal government with specific, delegated powers. Anything not delegated to the federal government would be reserved to the people and the states. Ultimately, their goal was to preserve the principle of government by consent. By building a government upon a foundation of popular sovereignty, without sacrificing the sovereignty of the states, legitimacy of the new government could be secured.

Today, it appears that the government established by the Constitution is an improvement from that which was established by the Articles of Confederation. At the time however, the Constitution was merely an experiment. Forget what you now know about the success Constitution. Considering its unprecedented nature and the fear that a strong national government would be a threat to personal liberty, would you have been a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist?

Learn more about Federalist papers.

“A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against any government on earth, general or particular, and what no government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, December 20, 1787

No Need for a Bill of Rights
The omission of a bill of rights from the Constitution was deliberate, not an oversight. George Mason proposed adding a bill of rights just five days before the Constitutional Convention ended. But after a short debate, the state delegations voted down the motion, 0–10. That became a problem during the ratification process when several states insisted on protection of rights.

Voting Record of the Constitutional Convention, showing the vote on the motion to appoint a committee to prepare a bill of rights, 1787, Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional Convention

Dangerous and Unnecessary
Supporters of the Constitution, the Federalists, thought a bill of rights was unnecessary and even dangerous. The authors of The Federalist Papers, including James Madison, argued for ratification of the Constitution without a bill of rights. They thought no list of rights could be complete and that therefore it was best to make no list at all.

Almost Fatal Mistake
The omission of a bill of rights proved to be a mistake almost fatal to the Constitution. New York and several other states agreed to ratify with the promise that the First Congress would add rights to the Constitution through the amendment process. These states might have rejected the Constitution without the promise of a future bill of rights.

Ratification of the Constitution by New York, with proposed amendments, July 26, 1788, Records of the General Government

Why a Bill of Rights?
The First Congress included a preamble to the Bill of Rights to explain why the amendments were needed. Declaring that they were a response to the demand for amendments from the state ratifying conventions, the preamble states that Congress proposed them "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers" and to extend "the ground of public confidence in the government."

Change to the preamble to the Bill of Rights, August 25, 1789, Records of the U.S. Senate

The Ones that Failed
These motions suggested additional amendments during debate in the Senate. They came from state ratifying conventions, as did most of the amendments proposed by James Madison in the House of Representatives. Motion C was proposed again by Congress in 1810, but wasn’t ratified. It would have denied public office to anyone who accepted a “title of nobility” from a king.

Motions A–D proposing amendments that failed in the Senate, September 7, 1789, Records of the U.S. Senate

225 Years Old
The Bill of Rights became the first 10 amendments to the Constitution when Virginia ratified them on December 15, 1791. Of the 14 states in the Union, Virginia was the 11th to ratify, thus providing the constitutionally required bar of three-quarters of the states needed for ratification. Since 1941, December 15 has been celebrated as Bill of Rights Day.

Virginia's ratification of the Bill of Rights, December 15, 1791, General Records of the U.S. Government

Same great content in an interactive design!

What did the Federalists want to protect?

Did Federalists want individual rights?

Why did the Anti

Did Anti