User:Neuscholar/Anti-Federalism

Nomenclature
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."

Main beliefs

 * They believed the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights.
 * They believed the Constitution created a presidency so powerful that it would become a monarchy.
 * They believed the Constitution provided insufficient rights in the courts (e.g., no guarantee of juries in civil cases, nor that criminal case juries be local) and would create an out-of-control judiciary.
 * They believed that the national government would be too far away from the people and thus unresponsive to the needs of localities.
 * They believed the Constitution would abrogate, at least in part, the power of the states.
 * They believed the federal government's powers to tax provided by the Constitution could be used to exploit citizens and weaken the power of the states.