The Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist Dispute: The Original Arguments For Each

by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay

The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, advocating the ratification of the United States Constitution.

The Anti-Federalist Papers are a collection of articles, written in opposition to the ratification of the 1787 United States Constitution. Unlike the Federalist Papers written in support of the Constitution, the authors of these articles, mostly operating under pen names, were not engaged in a strictly organized project. Morton Borden, collected 85 of the most significant papers and arranged them in an order closely resembling that of the 85 Federalist Papers, e.g. #10 in Borden's arrangement argues against Federalist No. 10.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, American History, Philosophy, Classics, Reference

782 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 1, 1999

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.

American politician Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the treasury of United States from 1789 to 1795, established the national bank and public credit system; a duel with Aaron Burr, his rival, mortally wounded him.

One of the Founding Fathers, this economist and philosopher led calls for the convention at Philadelphia and as first Constitutional lawyer co-wrote the Federalist Papers , a primary source for Constitutional interpretation.

During the Revolutionary War, he, born in the West Indies but educated in the north, joined the militia, which chose him artillery captain. Hamilton, senior aide-de-camp and confidant to George Washington, general, led three battalions at the siege of Yorktown. People elected him to the Continental congress, but he resigned to practice law and to found in New York. He served in the legislature of New York and later returned to Congress; at the convention in Philadelphia, only he signed the Constitution for New York. Under Washington, then president, he influenced formative government policy widely. Hamilton, an admirer of British, emphasized strong central government and implied powers, under which the new Congress funded and assumed the debts and created an import tariff and whiskey tax.

A coalition, the formative Federalist Party, arose around Hamilton, and another coalition, the formative Democratic-Republican Party, arose around Thomas Jefferson and James Madison before 1792; these coalitions differed strongly over domestic fiscal goals and Hamiltonian foreign policy of extensive trade and friendly relations with Britain. Exposed in an affair with Maria Reynolds, Hamilton resigned to return to Constitutional law and advocacy of strong federalism. In 1798, the quasi-war with France led him to argue for an army, which he organized and commanded de facto.

Opposition of Hamilton to John Adams, fellow Federalist, contributed to the success of Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, in the uniquely deadlocked election of 1800. With defeat of his party, his industrializing ideas lost their former prominence. In 1801, Hamilton founded the Federalist broadsheet New-York Evening Post, now known as the New York Post. His intensity with the vice-president eventually resulted in his death.

After the war of 1812, Madison, Albert Gallatin, and other former opponents of the late Hamilton revived some of his federalizing programs, such as infrastructure, tariffs, and a standing Army and Navy. His Federalist and business-oriented economic visions for the country continue to influence party platforms to this day.

Reviews

[Joel Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Even a general search for meaning in the US constitution is not complete without reading the arguments for or against its ratification. As I listen to individuals argue various constitutional issues (such as the 2nd ammendment) I always have to ask if they've read these papers. It seems that very few have. It's sad that in a pivotal time of collosal issues that face America that our citizens have such a shaky understanding of the fundamental laws that undergird all our legislative questions. Read it with a copy of the constitution and I promise you'll come away with a deeper understanding of the document.

[John Yelverton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anyone who doubts the genius of the founding fathers never read these papers.

[Breck Wightman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Review is for the edition. Didn’t love the revisionist introduction, but the opportunity to compare Federalist to Anti-Federalist arguments back to back was very useful.

[Hannah Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

Another group of white men claiming to be “for the people” but it’s just a d**k sizing competition with no diversity?! I’M BOREDDDDDDD but yeah someone needs to make a translation of these texts with a gen-z woman’s commentary I would’ve eat that up

[Angie Boyter · Rating 5 out of 5]

My friend Sheila nominated this for our book group, identifying certain Federalist selections along with the pertinent Anti-Federalist ones. It was a great way to approach these essays, as I read each essay along with its "anti" before moving on to the next.
It was fun to see the issues that seriously concerned the writers on both sides and to hear the reasons that molded their opinions at that time. Some are just not issues at all any longer, e.g., the idea that we are geographically too big to be one country. Others are still around but much weaker, e.g., the "states' rights" issues. Others are definitely of concern, such as the balance of power among the branches of government. I stopped to wonder numerous times as I read some statement, " Well, what would he think about THIS __________?" (fill in the blank with some current issue!)

[MJGee · Rating 5 out of 5]

As I finished reading, I understood that this was not a complete compilation of documents. Having obtained a thorough list, I was surprised to find the bulk of missing documents were of the Anti-persuasion. A brief scan of the Anti-positions quickly revealed to me the folly most expressed and thereby I understood their absence, for brevity of time engaged in the study of the issues. This book does a wonderful job in the selections offered and I have bettered my grasp of the people and heart felt thoughts they expressed about the Constitution. Thirteen state conventions, 1646 delegates had considered both sides and then 1068 ratified, thank God they did.

[Bonnie Carruth · Rating 3 out of 5]

My grandmothers gained the right to vote in 1920. One died in 1946, and one in 1947 and the voted in every election they were qualified to do so.

[Wendy]

Am I a federalist? Am I an anti-federalist? I keep getting confused! :)

[Neil McKinlay · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist Dispute: The Original Arguments For Each Kindle Edition, August 27, 2011, 782 pages.
It is no doubt a bit of a hard slog in places, but well worth the effort of reading, even if just to get a handle on the arguments for and against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788 and how the Federal system works (or is supposed to work) in America.
Having read The Federalist Papers before reading the Anti-Federalist Papers, and then reading the latter, I found myself in perfect agreement with the following proverb, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” Proverbs 18:7. However, I think the final product, (i.e., Constitution including its Bill of Rights etc.) is to be greatly admired by all who love “truth, freedom, and the American way.”
There were a few little typos in this Kindle version, but nothing that greatly bothered me.

[Al Lock · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting collection of papers and articles - the Federalist items are mostly from those written by Hamilton, and they do show some fundamental failures as rational papers, relying heavily on claims of "if we don't ratify, this horrible thing will happen!" generally without any root in reality. The anti-federalist arguments are heavily about the potential flaws in the Constitution, how it could be abused by the power hungry. Although some of the arguments have proven to be groundless, a lot of them have proven to be true. I was rather surprised by the fact that the Anti-Federalists predicted the decline in the power of the states and the reliance of state government on the federal government, the massive potential for power wielding in SCOTUS, concerns about term limits and professional politicians at the federal level, and the ineffectiveness of the impeachment power.

A very interesting read. Highly recommended.

[Benjamin · Rating 5 out of 5]

every us citizen must read. critical framing of the US constitution that describes the dangers inherent in democracies. a. ham is one of the great figures is American political philosophy and madison was a wise pragmatist before t. jefferson got the better of him. anti-federalist eassays are important to read too because you can see the initial political fault lines (centralized authority led by an energetic federal executive branch vs de-centralized authority led by state executive branches and a weak federal legislature) develop in US society that haven't changed a great deal in nearly 250 years.

[Isabelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

my takeaway of this is as follows — Madison does not get nearly enough credit for literally manipulating everyone at the constitutional convention into getting what he wants and us dropping the articles. And for that like hell yeah (love that this will be among the solely white male reviewers of this)

[Helen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read this at least twice now. Every read through is a different purpose and a different experience. Essential to read for those who study politics or are interested in understanding the true nature or basis for our current government.

[Joy Harding · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is foundational (if challenging) reading for anyone who wants to understand the underpinnings of the Constitution. I can't say that I loved it, but I understand why the Constitution was written the way was better after reading it.

[Derek · Rating 4 out of 5]

I haven't read it yet but from my opinion it will be a great, interesting book.

[Miranda · Rating 3 out of 5]

PLS 337: U.S. Political Thought

[Ahmad_J · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book discusses the various arguments presented by the founding fathers of the USA.

[Hayley Houston · Rating 3 out of 5]

Had to read for class.

[Meredith · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5. Had to read for history. Dense, a little boring, but overall interesting. Just less enjoyable because it was assigned of course.

[John Devlin · Rating 2 out of 5]

First its a tough read when you know who's going to win the argument. Then theres all the inside baseball discussions and the Anti's complaining about everything: the terms of the pols are too short, they're too long, they should be forced out, they should stay in, the judicial branch is too weak, the judicial branch is too strong, the President will be the Senate's puppet, the President will be a tyrannical king, and hey where's the bill of rights.

It's a miracle the Constitution ever passed. After 225 years the objections that still ring true are the fears the elasticity of the commerce clause would render the Congress vastly preeminent over the states and the judiciary would conspire to inflate its reach enervating the states as well.

[ebagg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this... as boring as it may seem. I learned a lot about US political theory and what I believe to be very important to current jurisprudence. Hamilton and other writers of the Federalist/Anti-Federalists were truly much more liberal than people give them credit for. Not in the BLM, LGBTIA+ sense, but in the sense that they generally preferred a more hands-off approach to MOST issues despite the seemingly contradictory title of the work. I specifically say liberal because this is all still founded on a capitalist base, but for now I don't mind it. I think if we actually practiced a more revised version of the federalist philosophy then American constitutional law wouldn't be so royally f*cked.

[Mike DiFilippo · Rating 3 out of 5]

An array of arguments for and against the US Constitution as seen from the 1780s - many are still alive today in the political positions of liberals, conservatives and progressives. Too powerful an executive branch? Maintain the balance of power among the three branches in the face of the normal accretion of power by special interests? All branches must have term limits? Ah, the Constitution seriously missed the last one.....

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good compilation of the more important Federalist Papers with some writings against adoption of the Constitution. I was struck by some of the common themes against: that it would lead to a government solely by and for elites, that the VP has nothing to do, that the VP would have a big influence in the Senate, and so on.

[Lady of the Lake · Rating 4 out of 5]

Boring? No, not boring when thought about as history in the making! I am fascinated by my countries founding fathers and how it all came about to put this country on it's road to greatness! Dry? Perhaps yes dry reading I'll give in to that! However I'm Happy that I read this!

[Mitchell Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I turned to this book during a final collegiate research project on the subject inequality. Wonderful piece of work and amazing insight into the works and minds of those for and against the US Constitution.

[MET · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read only if you want to understand American politics

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the sales presentation for our Constitution.

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

OK for a first read, but the whole book is necessary to really understand the debate

[Zoran]

A must read for anyone who wants context about the making of the nation and the US Constitution.... it is a bit dry, however it is original material...