The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution because they feared that the new national government would be too powerful and thus threaten individual liberties, given the absence of a bill of rights. Show
Their opposition was an important factor leading to the adoption of the First Amendment and the other nine amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. The Constitution, drafted at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, needed to be ratified by nine or more state conventions (and by all states that wanted to take part in the new government). A clash erupted over ratification, with the Anti-Federalists opposing the creation of a strong national government and rejecting ratification and the Federalists advocating a strong union and adoption of the Constitution. Patrick Henry was an outspoken anti-Federalist. The Anti-Federalists included small farmers and landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers. When it came to national politics, they favored strong state governments, a weak central government, the direct election of government officials, short term limits for officeholders, accountability by officeholders to popular majorities, and the strengthening of individual liberties. (Image via Wikimedia Commons, public domain, portrait by George Bagby Matthews and Thomas Sully)Anti-Federalists were concerned about excessive power of national governmentThe Anti-Federalists included small farmers and landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers. When it came to national politics, they favored strong state governments, a weak central government, the direct election of government officials, short term limits for officeholders, accountability by officeholders to popular majorities, and the strengthening of individual liberties. In terms of foreign affairs, they were pro-French. To combat the Federalist campaign, the Anti-Federalists published a series of articles and delivered numerous speeches against ratification of the Constitution. The independent writings and speeches have come to be known collectively as The Anti-Federalist Papers, to distinguish them from the series of articles known as The Federalist Papers, written in support of the new constitution by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pseudonym Publius. Although Patrick Henry, Melancton Smith, and others eventually came out publicly against the ratification of the Constitution, the majority of the Anti-Federalists advocated their position under pseudonyms. Nonetheless, historians have concluded that the major Anti-Federalist writers included Robert Yates (Brutus), most likely George Clinton (Cato), Samuel Bryan (Centinel), and either Melancton Smith or Richard Henry Lee (Federal Farmer). By way of these speeches and articles, Anti-Federalists brought to light issues of:
Anti-Federalists pressured for adoption of Bill of RightsThe Anti-Federalists failed to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, but their efforts were not entirely in vain. Although many Federalists initially argued against the necessity of a bill of rights to ensure passage of the Constitution, they promised to add amendments to it specifically protecting individual liberties. Upon ratification, James Madison introduced twelve amendments during the First Congress in 1789. The states ratified ten of these, which took effect in 1791 and are known today collectively as the Bill of Rights. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists reached a compromise that led to the adoption of the Constitution, this harmony did not filter into the presidency of George Washington. Political division within the cabinet of the newly created government emerged in 1792 over fiscal policy. Those who supported Alexander Hamilton’s aggressive policies formed the Federalist Party, while those who supported Thomas Jefferson’s view opposing deficit spending formed the Jeffersonian Party. The latter party, led by Jefferson and James Madison, became known as the Republican or Democratic-Republican Party, the precursor to the modern Democratic Party. Richard Henry was a possible writer of anti-Federalist essays with the pseudonym Federal Farmer. (Image via National Portrait Gallery, public domain, portrait by Charles Wilson Peale)Election of Jefferson repudiated the Federalist-sponsored Alien and Sedition ActsThe Democratic-Republican Party gained national prominence through the election of Thomas Jefferson as president in 1801. This election is considered a turning point in U.S. history because it led to the first era of party politics, pitting the Federalist Party against the Democratic-Republican Party. This election is also significant because it served to repudiate the Federalist-sponsored Alien and Sedition Acts — which made it more difficult for immigrants to become citizens and criminalized oral or written criticisms of the government and its officials — and it shed light on the importance of party coalitions. In fact, the Democratic-Republican Party proved to be more dominant due to the effective alliance it forged between the Southern agrarians and Northern city dwellers. The election of James Madison in 1808 and James Monroe in 1816 further reinforced the importance of the dominant coalitions within the Democratic-Republican Party. With the death of Alexander Hamilton and retirement of John Quincy Adams from politics, the Federalist Party disintegrated. After the War of 1812 ended, partisanship subsided across the nation. In the absence of the Federalist Party, the Democratic-Republican Party stood unchallenged. The so-called Era of Good Feelings followed this void in party politics, but it did not last long. Some scholars continue to see echoes of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates in modern party politics. This article was originally published in 2009. Mitzi Ramos is an Instructor of Political Science at Northeastern Illinois University. Send Feedback on this articlePage 2
Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) stands as the first U.S. Supreme Court case to expound upon the concept of academic freedom though some earlier cases mention it. Most constitutional academic freedom issues today revolve around professors’ speech, students’ speech, faculty’s relations to government speech, and using affirmative action in student admissions. Although academic freedom is regularly invoked as a constitutional right under the First Amendment, the Court has never specifically enumerated it as one, and judicial opinions have not developed a consistent interpretation of constitutional academic freedom or pronounced a consistent framework to analyze such claims.
By the end of this section, you will:
How do you force someone to fight for someone else’s freedom? This question reveals the irony of the policy of conscription that the U.S. government implemented during the Civil War. The Confederacy had introduced conscription first and experienced its own widespread popular opposition. But as the conflict wore on and casualties mounted, the Northern rush to enlist to put down the rebellion and preserve national unity eventually ebbed, and the question became relevant to the Union. In July 1862, Congress passed a militia law authorizing the president to draft state militia troops into service in the national army. Although some states managed to delay implementing it by successfully recruiting volunteers, by autumn the government had begun widespread use of the “state draft” or “militia draft,” authorizing the president to draft militiamen from the states, especially after President Abraham Lincoln’s Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation after the Battle of Antietam. By promising to free the slaves still held in rebel territory on January 1, 1863, the president’s executive order explicitly made the war a conflict over slavery and saving the Union. This motive proved unpopular in many areas of the North, and racist sentiment now combined with fears of job competition with blacks, higher taxes, expanded government power, and what some considered to be the tyranny of a stronger executive branch. Recruitment for the vast expansion of the armed forces became more difficult, and federal authorities turned more frequently to ever-increasing inducements for volunteers and the threat of conscription. Opponents reacted with protests and sometimes violence. In response, the army sent troops into areas of resistance, such as the coal regions of Pennsylvania, German Catholic communities in Wisconsin, and parts of southern Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio, where large populations of migrants from the South had settled decades before the war. The provost marshals began arresting those who resisted, and the army imprisoned protesters and newspaper editors whose columns urged antiwar activism and resistance. This, in turn, led to more protests and opposition. This political cartoon, entitled “Don’t you see the point?”, appeared in Harper’s Weekly on August 29, 1863. That fall, the Democrats used civil liberties, racism, and opposition to the draft and emancipation to gain ground with voters in the 1862 election. The Republicans, meanwhile, argued that anyone who opposed the war and the government was a traitor and called some Democrats “Copperheads” – after a poisonous snake. The term meant a Democrat who went so far in opposing the war as to commit treason. Although the Republicans held on to their congressional majority and most state legislatures, Democrats won control in several states, including the key state of New York. Combined with other issues, the draft became a potent political policy that, even as it allowed the government to continue waging the war, served to unify the opposition to it. The next spring, in March 1863, Congress passed the Enrollment Act, a conscription law authorizing a national draft. Every able-bodied male citizen and immigrant between the ages of 20 and 45 years was to be enrolled in the draft. When districts proved unable to fill their quota of recruits with volunteers, the provost marshals were to implement the draft to make up the difference. In July 1863, the army carried out the first of four drafts; the next three followed in 1864. This broadside announced the draft for Ohio’s 14th Congressional district would begin on September 17, 1863, at the courthouse in Wooster, Ohio. (credit: “Civil War draft broadside,” Ohio History Connection) Those whose names were drawn in the draft lottery might be eligible for an exemption – especially if they were the sole means of support for a widow, aging parents, or motherless children. If such an exemption could not be obtained, the draftee could hire a substitute to take his place or pay a $300 commutation fee (which typically only the wealthy could afford) that allowed him to return home. Substitutes tended to be young men of 18 or 19 years who were old enough to serve but too young to be drafted. Immigrants who had not yet applied for citizenship also provided a large pool of possible substitutes. The option to hire a substitute or pay a fee not to serve angered many Americans, who complained about the conflict’s being a “rich man’s war and [a] poor man’s fight.” With many tens of thousands of soldiers dying of disease, infections, and wounds, it was not surprising that large numbers of men tried to avoid the draft. More than 20 percent of those drafted refused to report for duty, fleeing to the West or going into hiding to avoid the provost marshals. Immigration raised additional concerns about the draft. Throughout the decades before the war, the number of immigrants had increased exponentially. The beginning of the war slowed the rate to a mere trickle, but the demand for workers during the conflict brought dramatic increases in wages, and the number of immigrants began to grow again in response to such economic opportunities. Some immigrant men saw military service as a financial boon as well, viewing the bounties offered to enlistees and the hiring of substitutes as a chance to improve their lot. Approximately 25 percent of the Union soldiers were immigrants. Whereas some wanted to enlist, others were tricked into service by manipulative criminals who took advantage of their inability to speak or read English. Some immigrants stepped off a ship and found themselves in the army before they realized what was happening. Nativism remained strong in the Northern states, and Irish immigrants especially experienced prejudice, bigotry, and violence. Because most of them were Roman Catholic, they also faced religious prejudice. In the army, immigrant troops served well, often in units made up of soldiers of the same ethnic background. Most famously, the Irish Brigade from New York consisted mostly of Irish American and Irish immigrant soldiers. The unit served throughout the war and fought with distinction at the Battles of Antietam and Gettysburg. Many in the North saw the draft as violation of individual freedom and civil liberties. When the first national draft was carried out in July 1863, the result was widespread protest and violence. To rally the poor, workers, white farmers, and immigrants against the draft, the Democratic Party often used racist rhetoric, blasting the Lincoln Administration for forcing white men to fight and die for the cause of freeing black slaves. Race, ethnicity, economics, and the expansion of government power all combined in the crisis of the draft. A convention of Iowa Democrats declared its members opposed to the Lincoln Administration for its “wicked Abolition crusade” and pledged to “resist to the death all attempts to draft any of our citizens into the army.” New York’s governor, Horatio Seymour, predicted a draft would lead to mob violence. The editor of a New York City Catholic newspaper used racist language in telling a mass meeting to refuse to answer Lincoln’s call for more troops. In such a context, then, it was not surprising that protests were held in a number of cities across the country. In some places, blood was shed. The worst came when opposition to conscription led to the New York City Draft Riots. The situation in New York made the city a tinderbox of tension that summer. Divided along ethnic and racial lines, New Yorkers were also stratified by social class and religion. Long the gateway to the nation, the city was home to many German and Irish immigrants, who lived in ethnic areas and neighborhoods and worked for low wages. Thousands of African Americans also called New York home and found themselves targets of racism and discrimination. The Democratic Party had built a political machine in New York City, organizing the city’s wards to win elections in exchange for valuable help with everything from municipal services to jobs and housing. Party leaders directed the Democratic ward bosses to move immigrants quickly along the path to citizenship in order to get their votes. When the draft began, immigrants who had applied for citizenship were enrolled and made eligible for conscription. Meanwhile, the Emancipation Proclamation implied that the war was a crusade against slavery and this stoked resentment against blacks among workers, the poor, and immigrants, in part because they feared job competition from millions of freed slaves and in part because of widespread racism. On July 11, 1863, army officers began the draft lottery in New York City. Most Union troops in and around the city had been sent to help stop the Confederate invasion that had resulted in the Battle of Gettysburg in early July, but the draft officers went forward with their duty despite the absence of many troops to keep order. The first day went smoothly, but on July 13, a mob began to form as hundreds of men began gathering in opposition to conscription. What had started as a protest quickly became a riot marked by violence and the destruction of property. Buildings were set on fire, and firefighters who arrived to fight the blaze were attacked. Soldiers and policemen were targeted, but so too were African Americans. The mob beat and tortured those it managed to capture. They lynched black men and set their bodies afire. For three days the riot raged on, until state militia and U.S. Army troops arrived and restored order. The violence left more than 100 dead, at least 2,000 injured, and more than 50 buildings destroyed. It was one of the worst riots in American history and demonstrated how the draft mixed with other issues like government overreach, civil liberties, race, and economics to create a combustible context in which seethed the divisions within the Union. Review Questions1. Congress passed a conscription law because
2. All the following were reasons for resisting the draft except
3. One reaction to the introduction of conscription was that
4. The term “Copperhead” was used to describe
5. The response to conscription in the North revealed that
6. The worst violence in protest of conscription occurred in
7. Compared with the poor, wealthy men were able to avoid the draft by
Free Response Questions
AP Practice QuestionsThis broadside announced the draft for Ohio’s 14th Congressional district would begin on September 17, 1863, at the courthouse in Wooster, Ohio. (credit: “Civil War draft broadside,” Ohio History Connection) Refer to the image provided.1. Which group would most likely see the poster as a cause for grievance against President Lincoln?
2. The actions called for in the poster were most likely a reaction to
3. The events called for in the poster led to what result?
Primary Sources“Iowa Copperheadism.” Muscatine Weekly Journal. April 17, 1862. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84027253/1863-04-17/ed-1/seq-2/ Report of the Committee of Merchants for the Relief of Colored People, Suffering from the Late Riots in the City of New York. African American Pamphlet Collection, Library of Congress. New York: G. A. Whitehorne, 1863. “The Bill for Enrolling and Calling Out the National Forces.” New York Times. February 19, 1863. Suggested ResourcesBernstein, Iver. The New York City Draft Riots: Their Significance for American Society and Politics in the Age of the Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Cook, Adrian. The Armies of the Streets: The New York City Draft Riots of 1863. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1974. Gray, Wood. The Hidden Civil War: The Story of the Copperheads. New York: Viking Press, 1942. Schecter, Barnet. The Devil’s Own Work: The Civil War Draft Riots and the Fight to Reconstruct America. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2005. |