The Federalist side of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Get yourself this book — 

— and read both sides of the debates. Both sides had valid perspectives, but you'll see the Anti-Federalist criticisms (which have been de-emphasized in American textbooks ever since) have been largely vindicated by subsequent U.S. history. They were very worried about the "strong central government" and felt the critiques of the Articles of Confederation were being exaggerated to serve a centralizing agenda.

I'll post some things that the robot told me:

Below is a high-density reconstruction of what broke in the 1780s and who argued about it.

(a) State coordination failures under the Articles of Confederation(a) State coordination failures under the Articles of Confederation

Structural causeStructural cause

The Articles of Confederation created a league of sovereign states, not a governing state:

• Congress could request, not compel
• No federal taxation
• No executive enforcement
• No federal courts
• Unanimity or supermajorities for action

This made collective action nearly impossible.

1. Fiscal collapse (national + state)1. Fiscal collapse (national + state)

• Congress could not tax → relied on state contributions → states routinely refused
• Revolutionary War debt unpaid
• Continental currency collapsed (“not worth a Continental”)

Manifestation:

• Soldiers unpaid
• Credit dried up
• Foreign lenders lost confidence
• States issued their own currencies, often inflating wildly

2. Interstate economic warfare2. Interstate economic warfare

States behaved like semi-independent countries:

• Tariffs on neighboring states’ goods
• Port states (NY, MA) taxed inland states (NJ, CT)
• No uniform trade policy

Manifestation:

• Trade fragmentation
• Retaliatory tariffs
• Britain exploited divisions, blocking US trade access

3. Inability to provide security3. Inability to provide security

• No standing national army
• States controlled militias
• Congress couldn’t respond rapidly to crises

Shays' Rebellion (1786–87)Shays' Rebellion (1786–87)

• Western MA farmers crushed by debt + taxes
• Courts seized farms → armed resistance
• State militia suppressed it; federal government could not intervene

Elite interpretation:

“If a state collapses internally, the union cannot act.”

This terrified property-holders and bondholders.

4. Foreign policy paralysis4. Foreign policy paralysis

• Britain kept troops in western forts (violating treaty)
• Spain closed the Mississippi to US trade
• Congress couldn’t credibly threaten or negotiate

Manifestation:

• Loss of sovereignty in practice
• Regional factions flirting with foreign alliances

5. Legal incoherence5. Legal incoherence

• No federal judiciary
• States ignored treaties
• Contracts unenforceable across borders

Manifestation:

• Commercial uncertainty
• Capital flight
• Elite fear of democratic “excess”

Net effectNet effect

The 1780s were perceived (by elites) as:

An unstable confederation sliding toward disunion or populist collapse

This is the pressure context behind 1787.

(b) What the Anti-Federalists argued, who they were, and who else mattered(b) What the Anti-Federalists argued, who they were, and who else mattered

Anti-Federalist critique (core themes)Anti-Federalist critique (core themes)

The Anti-Federalists argued:

1. Consolidated power = tyranny
   • National government would swallow states
   • “Necessary and Proper” clause was a blank check
2. Executive danger
   • Single executive → elective monarch
   • Commander-in-chief + standing army = despotism
   • Emergency powers would expand indefinitely
3. Congressional abdication
   • Representatives would defer to executive/administrators
   • Distance from constituents → accountability collapse
4. Elite capture
   • Government would serve creditors, merchants, financiers
   • Rural and debtor classes marginalized
5. No Bill of Rights
   • Explicit protections absent → liberties at risk

Many of these warnings map exactly onto modern critiques.

Who were the Anti-Federalists?Who were the Anti-Federalists?

Not a party; a coalition:

• Patrick Henry — warned of consolidated power
• George Mason — refused to sign Constitution
• Samuel Adams
• Richard Henry Lee
• Small farmers, debtors, frontier settlers
• Localist elites suspicious of national finance

They were strongest in:

• Virginia
• New York
• Massachusetts
• Rhode Island (last to ratify)

Federalists (for contrast)Federalists (for contrast)

The Federalists argued:

• Strong center prevents anarchy
• Representation filters popular passions
• Ambition will check ambition
• Energy in the executive is necessary

Key figures:

• James Madison
• Alexander Hamilton
• John Jay

Their writings (e.g. The Federalist Papers) dominate later interpretation because they won.

Who else was part of the discourse?Who else was part of the discourse?

Beyond the binary:

1. State constitutional thinkers1. State constitutional thinkers

• Each state had its own constitution
• Experiments in:
  • Unicameral legislatures
  • Strong legislatures, weak executives
  • Annual elections

These experiences directly informed both camps.

2. Classical & Enlightenment sources2. Classical & Enlightenment sources

Heavily cited by both sides:

• Montesquieu (separation of powers)
• Polybius (mixed government)
• Roman republican history
• English Civil War experience

The disagreement was diagnostic, not philosophical.

3. Popular press & pamphleteers3. Popular press & pamphleteers

• Newspapers were the internet
• Essays under pseudonyms (“Brutus,” “Cato,” “Publius”)
• Mass public constitutional debate—rare historically

Compressed synthesisCompressed synthesis

• The 1780s failed because the confederation couldn’t enforce coordination.
• Federalists fixed this by empowering the center—especially the Executive.
• Anti-Federalists correctly foresaw incentive drift: Congress would offload power; executives would accumulate it.
• The Constitution is best read not as a solved design, but as a frozen argument whose fault lines we still inhabit.