Constitutionally Speaking: The Anti-Federalist Philosophy
The Philosophy of Anti-Federalism and the Challenge to the Extended Republic
The discussion focuses on the political philosophy and skepticism behind the Anti-Federalist opposition to the United States Constitution during the ratification period of and .
Antifederalism is characterized as a diverse coalition comprising radicals, conservatives, agrarians, and religious zealots, all united by a shared skepticism that the Philadelphia Convention had successfully resolved the fundamental problems of republican governance.
The core philosophical critique rests on a doubt that extending a republic across a large, diverse population could effectively check factions without leading to the collapse of republican institutions.
The Hosts observe that James Madison's thesis in Federalist —that a large republic solves the problem of faction by allowing interests to check one another—was only partially adopted at the convention. The creation of the Senate, which provides guaranteed representation to small states regardless of population, serves as a direct contradiction to Madison's purely proportional national vision.
Anti-Federalists rejected the notion that the Constitution established a true system of "dual sovereignty." They viewed the document as a platform for a national union that would eventually consolidate power and eliminate the sovereignty of the states.
The Critique of Consolidation and the Meaning of "We the People"
Patrick Henry, at the Virginia ratifying convention, famously challenged the preamble: "What right had they to say 'We the People' instead of 'We the States'?" This signaled a rejection of the shift from a federal union of states to a consolidated national people.
Henry argued that the language of "people" rather than "states" anchors the government in a single national identity, thereby obviating local necessities and historical state identities.
Anti-Federalists like Centinel (or Sentinel) argued that Article I, Section granted congressional powers of taxation and legislation so extensive that they would necessarily "absorb the state legislatures and judicicatories."
Federal Farmer and Sentinel argued that the Constitution was an "imperial" project. While Federalists used the term "empire" to suggest collective security and sovereignty, Anti-Federalists equated it with the loss of localized control required for actual republican government.
The Anti-Federalist view held that a republic, by its very nature, must be small. This was seen as a tautology: a large republic was considered a contradiction in terms.
Intellectual Foundations: Montesquieu, Aristotle, and the Requirement of Smallness
Anti-Federalists relied heavily on Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws, specifically Book , Chapter . Montesquieu posited that in extensive republics, the "public good is sacrificed to a thousand private views," whereas in small republics, the public interest is more obvious and within reach of every citizen.
Republican government was defined as an exercise in self-government where citizens are free because they are bound only by laws they had a hand in creating.
The "Middling Order" Argument: Anti-Federalists argued that only small republics could maintain "sympathy" between rulers and the ruled. Agents of government should be a "true picture of the people" (Melancton Smith).
Anxiety about Creeping Oligarchy: There was a deep-seated fear that a large republic would distance representatives from their constituents, allowing a "wealthy and ambitious" elite to "lord it over their fellow creatures."
This perception of a "secret plot" or "oligarchic coup" to undermine the principles of was common. Anti-Federalists suspected that the political crisis of the was being used as cover to implement a "politer kind of government" led by a few dangerous, avaricious men.
Critique of the Proposed Constitutional Branches
The House of Representatives: Federal Farmer argued that having only representatives for or people was insufficient to reflect the genuine interests and feelings of the population. If the House were expanded to be truly representative, it was argued, it would become too unwieldy to function.
The Senate: Criticized for its six-year terms and lack of mandatory rotation, which could lead to "permanency" and a life-tenured aristocracy. Anti-Federalists viewed the Senate as a potential bastion of oligarchy.
The Presidency (Article II): William Sims pointed out the brevity and ambiguity of the executive power description. He questioned the scope of the "faithfully executed" clause and warned that the presidency was a "roving commission" with little accountability.
The Judiciary (The Courts): Brutus ( essay) argued that the Supreme Court was invested with immense powers and was "placed in a situation so little responsible." Being independent of the legislature and the people, they were described as being independent "of every power under heaven."
Jury Trials: Sentinel ( essay) argued that jury trials are essential for ensuring that common people have a share of influence in the judicial department, just as they should in the legislative department. The lack of a jury trial guarantee in civil cases was seen as a denial of popular representation.
The Bill of Rights as Institutional Design and Republican Virtue
The Bill of Rights is interpreted not merely as a list of abstract individual liberties, but as a set of institutional designs intended to ensure the "real, actual present people" could check the permanent branches of government.
Bicameralism of Institutions: This theory suggests that the Seventh Amendment (civil jury) serves as a check on judges, and the Second Amendment (militia) serves as a check on a standing army. These create a "second constitution" where local neighbors adjudicate disputes and provide security, rather than centralized experts or professional soldiers.
Anti-Federalist demands for a Bill of Rights eventually forced the Federalists to concede. This concession potentially "skunked" the Anti-Federalist cause by removing the primary objection that prevented ratification, even though many underlying concerns about consolidation remained.
Federalist Counter-Arguments and the "Superfluous" Bill
James Wilson argued that a Bill of Rights was "superfluous and absurd" because the federal government only possessed specifically enumerated powers. Since there was no power to regulate the press in Article I, Section , there was no need to protect it.
Judge McKean argued that the entire Constitution was effectively a "declaration of the people in what manner they choose to be governed," and thus a Bill of Rights in itself.
Madison and Wilson eventually realized that Article I, Section already contained a "truncated Bill of Rights" (prohibitions on bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and suspension of habeas corpus). Anti-Federalists used this to argue that if the Framers were worried enough to include those protections, they should include a full list.
Historical Context and Lasting Implications
The hosts discuss the tension between Hobartian functionalism (focus on security) and Aristotelian virtue-based politics.
Madison himself embodied this tension: while he promoted a Hobbesian "management of factions" in Federalist , he later appealed to Aristotelian "republican virtue" in the when opposing Alexander Hamilton's economic policies.
Note on Population and Representation: Madison proposed an amendment (voted down) that would ensure congressional districts never exceeded people. This would have resulted in upwards of districts in the modern era.
The Twenty-Seventh Amendment: Originally proposed by Madison in alongside the Bill of Rights, it prevented Congress from implementing its own pay raises until after a subsequent election cycle.
Questions & Discussion
Book Release Announcement: Jay Cost has a forthcoming book entitled The Price of Greatness: James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the Creation of American Oligarchy, available for preorder around Father's Day. It explores the philosophical divide between the Madisonian/Jeffersonian view of republicanism and the "high tone" government advocated by Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris.
Social Media and Feedback: Listeners can find Jay Cost on Twitter at @jcosttws and Luke Thompson at @lttomso. Discussions continue on the Ricochet Audio Network and iTunes. Reviews and ratings are encouraged to help promote the show.