Federalists v. AntiFederalists - Essay Example

It should also be noted that a main precursor to the proposed federalism was the ratification of the constitution as spelled out in the so-called Articles of the Confederation. For the proposed constitution to be ratified it was required that all thirteen member states were to express their consent through ratification from elected representatives from the states concerned. It was no secret to the delegates working on the new constitution that achieving this consensus is certainly an up hill task taking into account the level of economic, social and political polarization that had characterized the nation following the heels of the revolutionary civil war.

The most credible alternative that would usher in progress in the ratification process in the phase of the potential deadlock that could was seen in what can be described as crafty means of bending through the hill as proposed and implemented by the delegates. It was agreed that the proposed constitution could still be implemented granted nine out of the thirteen member states ratified the constitution. . ts of federalism did also caution that the failure of some member states to ratify the constitution should not be utterly dismissed with a relegation to isolation bearing in mind that the lack of a universal consensus in the ratification process should not be misconstrued for a potentially smooth sailing experience for the nine ratified states.

It was on this premise that the federalist marshaled all their available resources together in a campaign geared at winning the federalism debate. The dividing factor in the constitutional debate became so charged and acrimonious that neither the federalists nor the anti-federalist were willing to cede considerable grounds in the debate. Eventually, the federalists school of thought won the debate resulting in the complete ratification of the constitution by all nine states in the federation; thanks largely to the strong and active propaganda machinery of the federalist school of thought.

Besides the question of the ratification of the constitution the federalists and the anti-federalists were divided on a broad stream of other policies that had to do with the emerging questions of statehood, rights of citizens and a host of others. Suffice to cite a few illustrations to buttress the foregoing assertion. For instance, the bloc that stood opposed to federalism preferred a lesser role to be assigned to the central government in the management of the affairs of the state and its citizens, in contrast to the strong central government role as requested by the federalist politicians.

In denouncing central government dominance, anti-federalism called for a more developed legislative base at the state level. Meanwhile, both opponents and proponents of federalism did however express a common need to disband the Articles of