The Anti-Federalist papers were a collection of essays written to oppose ratification of the United States Constitution. Often authored using psuedonyms, they expressed the very real concerns of colonial citizens who feared the potential tyranny of a strong central government.
While many attempts have been made to identify the exact identities behind the pseudonyms, it’s important to note that some of the names attributed to Anti-Federalist authors are little more than speculation.
Agrippa warned that making federal laws paramount over state constitutions would render state declarations of rights meaningless, strip citizens of common‐law protections, and concentrate authority so heavily at the center that local self-government and individual liberties would vanish without an explicit bill of rights.
An Old Whig argued that the proposed “House of Representatives” offered only the shadow of true representation—legislators unfamiliar with local needs would craft laws without proper information or accountability, eroding public confidence and allowing distant power to override the people’s will.
Brutus cautioned that vesting broad judicial power in distant federal courts would absorb state judiciaries, eliminate jury trials, and brand any state challenge to overreach as treason—effectively muzzling resistance and paving the way for unchecked national despotism.
Cato criticized the Senate’s sweeping authorities—altering money bills, originating appropriations, appointing ambassadors and judges, making treaties, and trying impeachments—combined with lifelong tenure and constant session, as destroying any balance of power and enabling systematic usurpation of both state rights and individual freedoms.
Centinel argued that the new federal judiciary was designed to dwarf state courts, making justice as costly, intricate, and unattainable for ordinary citizens as it was in England, thereby empowering the wealthy to oppress—and ultimately ruin—the poor.
Federal Farmer condemned the lack of a constitutional council for the President and the creation of a Vice-President solely to preside over the Senate, warning these defects would blur the lines between executive and legislative branches and concentrate appointment powers in an unaccountable few.
George Mason was a key Anti-Federalist delegate from Virginia who refused to sign the U.S. Constitution, arguing it lacked sufficient protections for individual rights and granted excessive power to the federal government.
John DeWitt protested that, under the “general welfare” clause, Congress could grant trade monopolies, create new crimes, impose severe punishments, and extend its reach at will—leaving state legislatures powerless to protect their reserved powers and citizens vulnerable to arbitrary federal legislation.
Luther Martin decried the Constitution’s silence on press liberty, civil jury trials, and standing-army limits; objected to barring ex post facto relief only for those laws; and warned that postponing any ban on the slave trade for twenty-five years would weaken national defense and perpetuate moral and political peril.
