Talk:Anti-Federalism

President Jefferson and the Anti-Federalist Platform
what do you think about Thomas Jefferson strengthened the Anti-federalist platform during his time as President?


 * I think that the Anti-Federalist movement was a decade dead and gone when Jefferson was President. — DLJessup 13:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A lot of classical historians would agree with you. But Jefferson was Anti-Federalist to the bone... right up until the moment he became president. He fought the Federalists on a populist but social-libertarian platform. How more Anti-Federalist can you get? I think most historians agree that he either heavily compromised or lost sight of his goals when he became president. Fearwig 05:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I belive that because Thomas Jefferson was an Anti-federalist he purposely strengthened their platform while he was president.

I have some stuff that i though about rewording about Jefferson's involvement in the Anti-federalist cause. I was wondering about your opinions...It is arguable that Thomas Jefferson espoused Anti-Federalist views throughout his life. Contradictory to this view however, is the fact that, because his involvement in the actual Constitutional ratification discussion was limited, since he was stationed as Ambassador to France while the debate over federalism was going on in America in the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. Thanks...--Shipsitter (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Even though Jefferson was part of the Federalist administration, he is clearly an Anti-federalist. He was discrete in his political views (in part of his respect for Washington) but fomented opposition to a number of Federalist issues (i.e. increasing size of the military). Check Merrill Peterson's New Nation, The Terror of '98. Jefferson, as VP to Adams, was obsessed with fears of a monarchy. (Peterson 593) I think Anti-federalism is a post-era term. Jefferson's ideology was most clearly identified as Republican. In 1798, he made references to Tory (Federalist) and Whig (Anti-federalist/Republican). "It is well understood that two political sects have arisen with the U.S.; the one believing the executive is the branch of our government which most needs support; the other that like the analogous branch in the English government, it is already too strong for the republican part of the Constitution, and therefore in equivocal cases, they incline to the legislative powers; the former of these are called Federalist, sometimes aristocrats or monocrats and sometimes Tories, after the corresponding sect in the English government; the latter are still republicans, whigs, Jacobins, anarchists, disorganizers, etc." (Peterson) Scrbrd (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation
I motion that this be turned into a disambiguation page, or that it simply provide a disambiguation link to Hamilton's "Anti-Federalist" / "Anti-Administration" party. That has its own article already, and rightfully so. This article should also be renamed to correspond to the Federalist counterpart ("Federalist Party (United States)"). There is a big logical difference between anti-federalism and the Anti-Federalist party, and that needs to be enunciated. Fearwig 05:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll lay this all out. What we need isn't a disambiguation page, but a split, so that:


 * Anti-Federalist Party (United States) (currently and incorrectly a redirect to this article),
 * Anti-Administration Party (United States) (some information seems to be contained here on that topic despite the existence of an article on the topic), and
 * anti-federalism (political concept, including some platforms of the policy but not defined by the party itself or its history)

--are made distinct (see federalism and Federalist Party (United States) for comparison). The concept of anti-federalism is distinct from the Anti-Federalist Party (just as republicanism is distinct from the Republican Party), and as such this article is misnamed. The Washington-era "Anti-Federalist Party" doesn't belong here at all, since, as the article states, it was correctly called the Anti-Administration Party (United States). This means that some work will need to be done to Anti-Federalist Party (United States) using this information, and that anti-federalism will have to be created from scratch, but it's definitely necessary to correct this mistake.Fearwig 01:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no Anti-federalist party (at least that wasn't the title that the adherents of the states' rights movements in the late 18th century called themselves). They referred to their party as Republican. Scrbrd (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes Dec. 30 2007
I've considered all discussion on this article and used my own understanding of early U.S. political history to make today's changes. If anyone objects to this feel free to change them back. I felt that the heading "Anti-Federalism in the Early 19th Century" was completely misleading, as it seemed to refer to the political conflicts of Washington's (and to some extent J. Adams's) administrations. I changed some language concerning the agendas of the two proto-parties that seems to me to come from the 1911 EB; this probably needs sourcing, which I'll try to provide soon. In any event it's no more poorly supported than what was there already. Again, I'm sorry if these unilateral changes are offensive to anyone, but I think the article either needed removal or some basic surgery (maybe it still does).User:jperrlylsu 72.219.10.130 (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Real Federalists
According to one of my college professors and the readings for his class, the Anti-Federalists were actually true Federalists because they advocated a system where the states delegated certain powers to the Federal Government and reserved all other powers to themselves and that the Federalists were really nationalists that wanted an all-powerful central government. The Federalists simply usurped the title Federalist for themselves and labeled the "true Federalists" Anti-Federalists. Shouldn't this arguement be menntioned somewhere? Emperor001 (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No; that's revisionism at its silliest, completely reversing the actual historical meanings of these terms. At the time under discussion, these were the terms used universally by both the Federalists and their opponents. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not revision at its siliest. I am reading an introduction to the Federalist Papers right now and even it admits that the term Federalism referred to a "leaguing together, as under treaties" and that the Articles of Confederation was a true federal form of government while the Constitution was more of a centralizing document (though my professor admits that the Constitution is a cross between a centralized and federal state).  The introduction goes on to say, "Yet the advocates of a stronger national government at the joint (federal) level commandeered the term, leaving the defenders of the old system to become antifederalists."  It then mentions how Elbridge Gerry of Massachusts who disliked being called an Anti-Federalist stated that the correct terms should be Ratifiers and Anti-Ratifiers, or has he preferred "Rats and Anti-Rats."  Emperor001 (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All I meant by my comment was that the anti-ratification faction lost the propaganda war over who were the "real" Federalists back in the 1790s, and that to revisit this semantic scuffle over two centuries later is more than pointless. See also etymological fallacy. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But still isn't it worth mentioning that the Anti-Federalists were at one point deemed to be the true federalist since the term federalism described the government they supported? Emperor001 (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if you've got solid sources, and only as a minor footnote in the history of their movement - a half-sentence or full sentence, at best. The modern-day "Tea Party" may deem themselves the heirs of Sam Adams; that doesn't mean that any actual historians would agree with their theory. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just added a reference to this in the into of the article (couldn't figure out where a good place to put it under history would be. My sources are:  the introduction to the "Federalist Papers" by Garry Wills, my U.S. Constitution and Legal History Professor, and the articles he gave us by scholars named Dry, Wood, Ellis, McDonald, and Kenyon.  I don't have time to look for the specific references in those three sources, but I've already given the quotation from the Garry Wills piece.  Emperor001 (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

European Union
There is quite a bit of opposition (at least here in England) to the possibility of the EU becoming a full federation. Don't know if this would be considered "Anti-Federalism" in the sense described on this page as the opposition is mainly against the merging of culture & sovereignity rather than the system itself. Anonymous, 19:12 BST 18 October 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.185.36 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope; it's completely irrelevant to the subject of this article, and belongs instead in an article like Euroskepticism. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Scope of the article
I removed the first paragraph of the article lead which suggested that this article was about the concept of anti-federalism in general. However the entire rest of the article only discusses the specific group of Anti-Federalists that arose in opposition to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. This group played a very significant role in the history of the era (with implications that carry forward to this day) and merit their own article.

As far as I know, this is the only anti-federalism that played a significant part in U.S. History. If there is some GENERAL political theory of anti-federalism, then it belongs in its own article, not this one. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-Federalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161008065110/http://www.ushistory.org/us/16b.asp to http://www.ushistory.org/us/16b.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901180805/http://dca.tufts.edu/features/aas/index.html to http://dca.tufts.edu/features/aas/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit to history section
Added two sentences at the end of paragraph 4 to clarify that these authors did not write their works as a group, instead publishing as individuals. Included citation for Cornell, Saul. (1999). The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828. University North Carolina Press. pp 22-24. CGJohnston21 (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Political Science Research Methods POLS 2399
— Assignment last updated by Neuscholar (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Editing the Nomenclature Section
The first two paragraphs of the history section are focused on the origins of the term anti-federalist, yet there is already a separate section for nomenclature. I propose combining these two paragraphs and the already existing text under the nomenclature section. Neuscholar (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Below I have included an idea of what I think the nomenclature section could look like when the information that is currently under that section is combined with the first two paragraphs of the history section. The citations included are the ones already used in the article.


 * During the American Revolution and its immediate aftermath, the term federal was applied to any person who supported the colonial union and the government formed under the Articles of Confederation. After the war, the group that felt the national government under the Articles was too weak appropriated the name Federalist for themselves. Historian Jackson Turner Main wrote, "to them, the man of 'federal principles' approved of 'federal measures,' which meant those that increased the weight and authority or extended the influence of the Confederation Congress."
 * The name "Anti-Federalists" is a misnomer. As the Federalists moved to amend the Articles, eventually leading to the Constitutional Convention, they applied the term anti-federalist to their opposition. The term implied, correctly or not, both opposition to Congress and unpatriotic motives. The Anti-Federalists rejected the term, arguing that they were the true Federalists. In both their correspondence and their local groups, they tried to capture the term. For example, an unknown anti-federalist signed his public correspondence as "A Federal Farmer" and the New York committee opposing the Constitution was called the "Federal Republican Committee." However the Federalists carried the day and the name Anti-Federalist forever stuck. According to historian Carol Berkin:
 * "Perhaps the nationalists' most brilliant tactic in the battle of ideas ahead of them, however, was their decision to call themselves 'Federalists' and their cause, 'Federalism.' The men behind the Constitution were not, of course, federalists at all. They were advocates of a strong national government whose authority diminished the independence of the states. [...] By co-opting the name 'Federalists,' the pro-Constitution forces deprived their opponents of the ability to signal clearly and immediately what they stood for."
 * Neuscholar (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Removing the citation's needed template
Since there are now sources for all of the bullet points under the main beliefs section, I propose removing the article template on this section that states “this section needs additional citations for verification.” Neuscholar (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)