Antifederalist authors wrote during the same general period of time as Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, even beginning their efforts before The Federalist was published. Working in several states simultaneously, these authors worked generally in isolation, and often presented different arguments over the same topics. Instead of the coherent, coordinated effort that we now call The Federalist, Antifederalists should be recognized as a diverse group of thinkers whose primary commonality was their concern with the proposed new government and, for varying reasons and to varying degrees, their opposition to it.

Additionally, instead of casting the Antifederalists as the losers of the debate – that is, the Constitution was ratified over their opposition and the new government went into, and still is in, effect – an understanding of key Antifederalist issues and arguments provides a fascinating and informative view into American political culture then, since then, and even now. Many of the issues dear to the Antifederalists, like the limits of federal power, frequency and nature of elections, and the power of the federal courts, are still relevant today. Instead of a debate that took place in history, the Federalist-Antifederalist Debates should be seen as the opening round in an ongoing discussion over philosophical and practical issues of politics, power, and the role and structure of government in America.

1787

• Cato I, A warning to seriously consider any changes to government that might threaten liberty, September 27, 1787 (New York)
• Centinel I, Is concerned over the lack of a bill of rights and questions the degree of need for a new government in the first place, October 5, 1787 (Pennsylvania)
• Federal Farmer I, Although a ‘federal’ government is necessary, October 8, 1787 (Virginia)
• Federal Farmer IV, Provides and emphatic argument in favor of a bill of rights, October 12, 1787 (Virginia)
• Brutus I, Believes that a republic on the scale proposed will eventually lead to tyranny, October 18, 1787 (New York)
• An Old Whig IV, Advocates for a small republic and a bill of rights, October 27, 1787 (Pennsylvania)
• An Old Whig V, Argues in favor of explicit protections for freedom of conscience, November 1, 1787 (Pennsylvania)
• Brutus II, Continues his argument from his first essay, positing that a consolidated government would trample on the rights of individuals, November 11, 1787 (New York)
• Brutus III, Takes issue with the 3/5 clause and argues that those with “no share” in government should not be counted toward representation in it, November 15, 1787 (New York)
• Cato V, Raises a series of issues with the executive, legislature, frequency of elections, and ratio of representation, November 22, 1787 (New York)
• Brutus IV, Questions the ratio of representation in the House and whether it is possible to appropriately and accurately stand for the will of the people in such an arrangement, November 29, 1787 (New York)
• Brutus V, Points out the broad goals of the Preamble and connects them to concerns over the open-ended growth of legislative power as facilitated by the “necessary and proper” clause, December 13, 1787 (New York)
• Agrippa VII, Raises concerns over uneven trade, tax, and revenue policies, given the economic diversity of the states, December 18, 1787 (Massachusetts)
• The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania, Deeply concerned about protections of the rights of conscience, among others, December 18, 1787 (Pennsylvania)

1788

• Brutus IX, Points out that standing armies in peacetime are often threats to personal liberty and questions the power of the new government to raise and maintain such forces, January 17, 1788 (New York)
• Brutus XI, Questions lifetime judicial appointments and the power federal judges will have over all powers coming from the Constitution, January 31, 1788 (New York)
• Brutus XV, Expresses deep concern over the potential power of the Supreme Court, March 20, 1788 (New York)