[Lee'sGhost]

Serious question. Would it be more accurate to say “confederalist” instead of anti-federalist? I mean, my sense of it is that the people who opposed federalism were FOR the continuation of a system of sovereign states with a weak central government. And in turn, weren’t the federalists against confederalism? Therefore could be call anti-confederalists?

This isn’t idle musing. I’m wording if the confederalists of the day fell into the trap of using language dictated by the federalists...just as libs largely control the language today. Ex: Anti-abortionist vs right to lifer.

[rjsimmon]

Fair question, but the point of the papers was to support a constitution that created a strong, federalized/centralized government, thus “Federalist”. Those opposed to the idea were against a strong centralized government, thus “Anti-Federalist”. So the titling is quite correct. The Articles of Confederation utterly failed so the continuation would have amounted to dissolution of the bands of our newly fledged country, with no unifying government to keep them from fighting. And fight they would.

[Jacquerie]

Since the early 1780s, Madison, Hamilton, Washington, Robert Morris and others urged strengthening of the Articles of Confederation, which were dangerously deficient in their taxation, treaty, and commerce powers. They were known as strong "federal" men, and were called federalists. Unfortunately, the states could not agree on amending the Articles in these areas.

The name stuck to those who sought to strengthen the government while keeping it federal.

More on the topic: Whatever Happened to the Articles of Confederation Part V.

http://articlevblog.com/2017/01/whatever-happened-to-the-articles-of-confederation-part-v/