Abstract
The Anti-Federalists, as the losers of the debate over ratification, have frequently been portrayed as petty obstructionists who had no answer to the Federalist argument for the Constitution. More recently, scholars have placed more emphasis on strategic aspects of the debate; the success of the Constitution owes a great deal to strategic considerations and to the superior political network of its supporters. The disparity in the degree of cooperation and coordination of each of their political organizations, however, has never been systematically examined. In this paper, we conduct a quantitative investigation into this question. We construct a simple measure of the organization of the Anti-Federalists, the spread of published newspaper essays, to examine the extent and development of their political network during the debates over ratification, from September 1787 through July 1788. Using data on the reprinting of essays in support of or in opposition to the Constitution, we examine the dissemination of Federalist versus Anti-Federalist arguments. We use network analysis techniques to determine the extent of national cooperation of newspapers sympathetic to each side. Our results suggest that although the Anti-Federalist network was not as strong at the beginning of the debate, they became better organized in late 1787, only to begin to crumble early the following year.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The name of the opponents of ratification has been rendered in different ways, both in the contemporary debates and in subsequent scholarly literature. Though ‘Antifederalist’ is probably the most common version of the name, and is the one used by the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution (DHRC) (Kaminski et al. 2018), we have decided to follow Herbert Storing’s convention and use ‘Anti-Federalist.’ He explains his reasoning in an early note in What the Anti-Federalists Were For: “‘Anti-Federalist’ balances the positive and negative sides by giving the group (or the position) a proper name, while still emphasizing its character as opposition. The typographically convenient ‘Antifederalist,’ now generally in favor, suggests more cohesion than actually existed, while ‘anti-Federalist’ suggests a merely negative, dependent unity” (Storing 1981, p. 79).
- 2.
Saul Cornell’s (1999) The Other Founders is perhaps the best recent example of tracing the Anti-Federalists’ influence and legacy, though David Siemers (2002) has contributed two excellent books on the topic as well, one of them being perhaps the best currently available concise collection of opposition writings from the ratification debates. Perhaps the most significant work that revives the Anti-Federalist tradition, though, does not center on the Anti-Federalists: Pauline Maier’s (2010) Ratification offers a rich history of the debates that is long overdue in the literature on the period.
- 3.
These six are the states Main identifies as having Anti-Federalist majorities, though the evidence is murky at best for the last three. The seventh state for Main was Pennsylvania, which has more recently been shown rather conclusively to have had a Federalist majority, albeit a small one (Ireland 1989).
- 4.
The North Carolina convention, meeting in July 1788, adjourned without a formal rejection of the Constitution, though a motion to ratify was defeated overwhelmingly. Rhode Island, meanwhile, held a referendum rather than a convention in March, in which the people voted against ratification, though the Federalists in the state generally boycotted the proceeding as improper; nowhere was this seen as an important defeat, as the Federalists seem to have hardly recognized (if at all) that such a referendum took place in ‘Rogue Island,’ the black sheep of the United States.
- 5.
It would be out of place to include an extensive history here, but fortunately Pauline Maier’s (2010) Ratification offers an excellent account of the national debate, weaving together the events in the various states. For state-by-state accounts, two edited volumes that appeared during the American bicentennial both offer a great deal of insightful analysis. Ratifying the Constitution by Gillespie and Lienesch (1989) offers more detailed accounts of the actual debates on the Constitution in 1787–1788, while The Constitution and the States by Conley and Kaminski (1988) gives richer background for each state, as well as a very useful short bibliographic essay for each state, and a more extensive one on ratification as a whole.
- 6.
The classic account of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 is Catherine Drinker Bowen’s (1966) Miracle at Philadelphia, though Richard Beeman’s (2010) Plain, Honest Men presents a narrative that draws on more recent material and historical analysis. Max Farrand’s (1966) Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 remains the best documentary collection relating to the Convention, and his Framing of the Constitution (Farrand 1913), published a half century before Bowen’s book, is still a worthwhile read.
- 7.
The editors of the DHRC counted at least seventy-five newspapers that printed the Constitution within two months of the end of the Philadelphia Convention (Kaminski et al. 2018).
- 8.
Many of these letters were reprinted by Farrand (1966) in volume 3 of his Records. More such letters were reprinted in volume 4 of the Documentary History of the Constitution (Department of State 1905). Virtually the entire surviving correspondence on the Constitution during the ratification debates will eventually be included in the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, and much interesting correspondence has appeared in the volumes of the DHRC released so far (Kaminski et al. 2018).
- 9.
- 10.
In Pennsylvania, the Federalists succeeded in calling a ratifying convention only after a friendly mob in Philadelphia physically carried two Anti-Federalist legislators back to their seats in order to establish a quorum. The nineteen members of the opposition had walked out of the session to prevent such a hurried convention. In the ratifying convention, the minority was prevented from even proposing its amendments or having them entered on the minutes. In both cases, the indignant minority members published a newspaper essay about their mistreatment, and in fact both essays were widely reprinted. In Connecticut, those who dared oppose the Constitution were threatened with political repercussions and general character assassination in the press. The minority, wrote Hugh Ledlie to John Lamb (who coordinated much of the national correspondence among opponents of the Constitution from New York), ‘were told plainly that if they did not turn and vote for it, they must not expect any places either of trust or profit under the new Constitution.’ The Federalists were as good as their word, relentlessly attacking James Wadsworth, the principal Anti-Federalist in the state, as well as several prominent opposition leaders who ultimately did vote for ratification. With every newspaper in the state strongly Federalist, the minority had little recourse for defense (Kaminski et al. 2018, vol. II, pp. 112–117; 617–639; vol. III, p. 579).
- 11.
The Pennsylvania Herald, during the state convention, published versions of the debates along with commentary by its editor Alexander Dallas, until prominent Federalists complained that Dallas was entirely too friendly to the Anti-Federalist cause, at which point he was fired and his accounts were no longer printed. The Herald ceased publication shortly afterwards because of the loss of so many Federalist subscriptions. In Boston, Federalists managed to pressure Benjamin Russell, printer of the Massachusetts Centinel, into insisting that the name of the author of any Anti-Federalist piece be made available to the public, to the consternation of the opposition in the state and elsewhere. (The policy did not apply to pieces in favor of the Constitution.) When another printer, Edward Powars of the American Herald, criticized this policy, local Federalists responded, in the words of an Anti-Federalist writer in the newspaper, ‘by THREATENING the Printer and DROPPING the papers that contain’ writings against the Constitution. By the end of June, Powars was forced to close up shop for lack of subscriptions, and he was effectively run out of town, reopening his paper two months later in Worcester. In New York, many Federalists refused to advertise in Thomas Greenleaf’s New York Journal because it printed so much Anti-Federalist material. Even other printers in the city attacked him on this score. Many Federalists cancelled subscriptions to put financial pressure on Greenleaf’s paper, and after New York’s ratification a Federalist mob attacked his office and destroyed much of his equipment (Kaminski et al. 2018, vol. II, p. 40; vol. IV, pp. 41–44; p. 352, liv; vol. XIX, pp. lvii–lxi).
- 12.
The online database ‘America’s Historical Newspapers’ provides electronic versions of a substantial number of newspapers from the debate. It can be found at www.readex.com.
- 13.
The idea of free sharing and lax attribution would be gross violations of contemporary journalistic ethics, but at the time they were seen as perfectly acceptable. The closest modern equivalent to this system of shared news and commentary is news blogs, which will copy material without permission, though bloggers will usually post the source of the material.
- 14.
Hazard’s general incompetence led to a congressional investigation, though he was not removed from office. This incident was not forgotten, though; when it came time for George Washington, as President, to appoint a postmaster general under the new Constitution (since all such positions, legally, would have to be reappointed or reassigned), he decided not to reappoint Hazard, despite the fact that nearly every other officeholder under the Articles of Confederation was retained in his post. Washington’s position on Hazard is clear in a letter he wrote to John Jay in July, 1788. He wrote that ‘if the Postmaster General (with whose character I am unacquainted & therefore would not be understood to form an unfavorable opinion of his motives) has any candid advisers who conceive that he merits the public employment they ought to counsel him to wipe away the aspersion he has incautiously brought upon a good cause [that is, ratification of the Constitution]. If he is unworthy of the Office he holds, it would be well that the ground of a complaint, apparently so general, should be enquired into, and, if founded, redressed through the medium of a better appointment’ (Kaminski et al. 2018, vol. XVI, p. 596).
- 15.
The Documentary History (Kaminski et al. 2018, vol. XVI, pp. 540–596) collects many of the writings about the controversy, and includes an excellent description of what happened. Although he says little about the post office controversy of 1788, Richard John (1995, pp. 30–42) offers an excellent discussion of the importance of the postal service in colonial America, and the issue of newspapers sent through the mail during the debate over the Post Office Act of 1792, which involved recognizable echoes of the ratification debates.
- 16.
Although ideally a network analysis would examine the path taken by reprints, noting the newspaper from which a copy was made rather than the original source, there is not sufficient information to consistently use anything but the original source of the material. This is what we have done here.
- 17.
The ads were sometimes political essays unto themselves, and a few such have been included in this analysis, including several for the book version of The Federalist.
- 18.
For example, the authorship of three of the four most significant series of Anti-Federalist essays is heavily disputed. The letters of the Federal Farmer, traditionally attributed to Richard Henry Lee, are now more commonly credited to Melancton Smith, though that attribution is tenuous. The letters of Brutus are also sometimes attributed to Smith, and sometimes to Robert or Abraham Yates, and a few other New Yorkers. The authorship of the letters of Cato, generally credited to Governor George Clinton of New York, is also seriously disputed. Of the four main series, only the identity of Centinel is generally beyond dispute, as Samuel Bryan bragged about his authorship; still, some historians believe that he wrote only part of the series, or that the author was actually a group of people, of which Bryan was only a part. Many of the less influential pieces remain completely anonymous to historians.
- 19.
The numbers of printings, divided by state, of the pieces we have considered here can be found in the appendices of the DHRC, volumes XIII–XVIII.
- 20.
John Alexander (1990) examines the newspaper coverage of the Philadelphia Convention itself, and draws some fascinating conclusions about the biases and political and ideological leanings of printers across the country, but this is neither a systematic study nor an examination of the ratification debates. Nonetheless, it represents a significant and important effort to understand the role of newspapers, and especially the spread of news. Richard John’s (1995) work on the postal system also addresses the spread of newspapers, as does Johann Neem’s (2008) work on the development of civil society and democratic culture in New England. Neither of these, though, offers a systematic analysis of how news and opinions traveled via newspapers in eighteenth-century America.
- 21.
Beard (1921) presents the classic version of the argument that the Federalists were rich and the Anti-Federalists were men of modest means, though the opposition frequently referred to the Federalists as the aristocratic party during the debates. Main (1961, pp. 266–278) disputes Beard on this point. Although there is evidence that the breakdown between parties was at least somewhat along socioeconomic lines, there was a distinct urban/rural split that transcended wealth. Even the poorer classes in the cities tended to support the Constitution, and the wealthier planters were as likely to be skeptical as more modest farmers. Despite this complication, it is reasonable to say that the Federalists, on the whole, were wealthier than their opponents. It is difficult to assess, however, just how much impact this wealth advantage had in their success at securing ratification.
- 22.
Main (1961) and Rutland (1966) both suggest that the Anti-Federalists were less organized and were politically outmaneuvered. While this was certainly true in some states, in others, notably New York and Virginia, they did organize effectively and put up a strong opposition. Boyd (1979) disagrees with Main and Rutland on this point, noting that the Anti-Federalists were actually quite organized politically, contesting convention elections and generally doing all they could to stop the ratification process or outright reject the Constitution. This debate about electoral organization, of course, falls outside the scope of this analysis.
- 23.
The concentration of Anti-Federalist material in New York, instead of indicating a lack of national organization, might suggest that the opposition to the Constitution was merely focusing its efforts on a crucial state. A close examination of John Lamb’s letters, though, thoroughly undermines such a hypothesis. Lamb wrote to Anti-Federalists in many states, and with the exception perhaps of Virginia (and of course New York) the responses invariably suggest a disorganized opposition overmatched and outmaneuvered by the Federalists (Kaminski et al. 2018, vol. XVIII, pp. 32–68).
- 24.
With any edited collection of documents, one must be wary of selection bias. The DHRC, though, because it is comprehensive in its scope and designed to include virtually every document relevant to ratification, no matter how tedious or trivial, does not raise any red flags. The Commentaries section of the DHRC in particular is reliable, because the essays selected for those volumes were selected for either their intellectual importance to the debate, or their political importance; the latter is essentially a reflection of how often the essays were reprinted across state lines. Thus, this collection does not omit anything that was widely reprinted, so there is no reason to suspect any bias that might affect our conclusions.
- 25.
The omission of squibs was a practical decision, given that they would substantially increase the amount of data, and would raise the question of whether they should count equally with longer essays in comparing the organizations on either side of the ratification question. Since an overwhelming number of the squibs, like the majority of newspapers, were Federalist in nature, this analysis, by excluding squibs, probably understates the extent and impact of the Federalist network. The reprinting of squibs is worth a separate analysis, and we expect it would suggest not just an advantage but a Federalist dominance when it comes to newspaper reprintings.
- 26.
- 27.
North Carolina is the only state without a Federalist reprint in September. It is very likely that newspapers in the state did in fact reprint Federalist essays in this (and every) month, but unfortunately North Carolina’s newspapers had a low survival rate, and few copies are extant. Thus, we really do not know the extent of material reprinted in the state. Relatively few writings appear to have originated there but given its strong Anti-Federalist leanings it seems likely that some of the opposition material was republished in North Carolina, though our data includes no Anti-Federalist reprintings in that state.
- 28.
The Federalists do not seem to have been much affected by the new postal policies that clearly hampered their opponents. It is possible that, as Centinel claimed, post riders were more willing to carry Federalist newspapers. It seems more likely that more Federalists personally delivered newspapers to far away states. After all, the Federalists, well-represented among the wealthier (and hence more mobile) parts of society, likely traveled more, and could carry such materials along. But this is merely speculation.
References
Alexander JK (1990) The Selling of the Constitutional Convention: A History of News Coverage. Rowman & Littlefield, New York
Beard C (1921) An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Macmillan, New York
Beeman R (2010) Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. Random House, New York
Bowen CD (1966) Miracle at Philadelphia. Little, Brown and Co, Boston
Boyd SR (1979) The Politics of Opposition: Antifederalists and the Acceptance of the Constitution. KTO Press, Millwood, NY
Conley PT, Kaminski JP (1988) The Constitution and the States: The Role of the Original Thirteen in the Framing and Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Madison House, Madison, WI
Cornell S (1999) The Other Founders: Anti-federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788–1828. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill
Department of State (1905) Documentary History of the Constitution of the United States of America 1786–1870. Department of State, Washington DC
Farrand M (1913) The Framing of the Constitution of the United States. Yale University Press, New Haven
Farrand M (1966) The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Yale University Press, New Haven
Fruchterman TM, Reingold EM (1991) Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software: Practice and Experience 21(11):1129–1164
Gillespie MA, Lienesch M (1989) Ratifying the Constitution. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence
Ireland OS (1989) The people’s triumph: The Federalist majority in Pennsylvania, 1787-1788. Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 56(2):93–113
John RR (1995) Spreading the News: The American Postal System from Franklin to Morse. Harvard University Press
Kaminski JP, Saladino GJ, Leffler R, Schoenleber CH, Hogan MA (2018) The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville
Kenyon CM (1955) Men of little faith: The Anti-Federalists on the nature of representative government. The William and Mary Quarterly: A Magazine of Early American History 12(1):4–43
Maier P (2010) Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788. Simon and Schuster, New York
Main JT (1961) The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution, 1781–1788. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill
Neem J (2008) Creating a Nation of Joiners: Democracy and Civil Society in Early National Massachusetts. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Rutland RA (1966) The Ordeal of the Constitution: The Antifederalists and the Ratification Struggle of 1787–1788. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman
Siemers D (2002) Ratifying the Republic: Antifederalists and Federalists in Constitutional Time. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Storing HJ (1981) What the Anti-Federalists Were For. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Tamassia R (2013) The Handbook of Graph Drawing and Visualization. CRC Press, Providence
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Faber, M.J., Ragan, R. (2019). Organized Opposition: The Anti-Federalist Political Network. In: Hall, J., Witcher, M. (eds) Public Choice Analyses of American Economic History. Studies in Public Choice, vol 39. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11313-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11313-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11312-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11313-1
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)