Debate and Conflict Between Federalists and Anti Federalists - Coursework Example

Federalists versus Anti-Federalists The U.S. Constitution was proposed and drafted at a convention convened in Philadelphia in 1787 by a distinguished group of influential men headed by Alexander Hamilton. At this time, its ratification in 1789 was far from assured. In all of the thirteen colonies, differing interests and groups both supported and opposed a federal constitution, sparking an intense public debate. Those in favor of the proposed constitution including Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote a series of essays (85) that were published in newspapers referred to as the Federalist Papers. Those opposed to the constitution, the Anti-Federalists which included John Hancock, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, also wrote a series of arguments now known as the Anti-Federalist papers. They feared the potential powers of centralized federal government dominating the will of the states. The Federalists gave assurances that this was not their intention; that they were not trying to create a tyrannical governing system much like the one in Britain which the colonies had just fought a war to escape. This is how the Bill of Rights was formed. It was a compromise forged between the two conflicting viewpoints. The terms describing these differing opinions is somewhat misleading. Federalists are better defined as Nationalists because they supported a powerful federal government. The Anti-Federalists could be more accurately described as federalists because they preferred the government be a federation of autonomous states. This discussion examines the perspective of both Federalists and Anti-Federalists, how they reached a compromise after two years of heated debate and the reasons why one was ultimately the better choice. The Necessity of the Constitution The Federalist Papers conveyed the shortcomings of the loosely confederated union between the states that existed at the time and the benefits of unifying the states into an effective central government. The Federalists, being wealthy land and business owners, believed that a strong centralized federal government operated by learned, influential persons would encourage commerce which was to their own and the country’s benefit. In the second of the Federalist Papers, John Jay enumerated this motive first over all other reasons to unite the states by enacting a constitution. “It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object” (Jay, 1787: Fed. #2). The Federalists’ interests lie first and foremost in a strong economy which would contribute to the prosperity and security of all citizens. It is likely that their own economic interest was at least a component of their motivation to create a strong federal system of governance. In essence, the Papers defended the concept of republicanism within the Constitution. In addition to economic advantages, the Federalists made a convincing argument for the forming of a strong federal government by underscoring the necessity for preserving and securing the lives, property and liberty of the new country’s citizens. By combining resources and interests, the economic and military weaknesses of the loosely affiliated states would be greatly strengthened which would act to protect the entire country from both external and internal dissension. The country as a whole would become less vulnerable to invasion from foreign countries and a civil war within the country, a claim that would be disproved less than a century later. James Madison, who wrote more than one-third of the Federalists Papers and would become the Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson and the fourth president of the U.S., addressed the concerns of whether the republican government proposed by the constitution would ensure civil liberties for all people. Madison characterized the two types of government envisioned by the two opposing viewpoints as republican and democratic. In a true democracy, all citizens directly participated in the decisions of the government while, in a republican government, the citizens elected representatives to conduct its business. Madison, as did all of federalist leanings, preferred the republican form of government. In number 10 of the Federalist Papers, Madison espoused his belief that a democratic form of government would divide the nation into factions leading to a dysfunctional system of governing. Madison described a faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (Madison, 1787: Fed. #10). In number 10 of the Federalist Papers, Madison continued to say that he believed factions become particularly harmful to the stability of a nation when they “form a majority of the population.” Madison maintained that the republican type of government advocated by the Federalists could better resolve the challenges that faction would produce not by “removing its causes” as a tyrannical government would do but by “controlling its effects” (Madison, 1787: Fed. #10). Madison believed that a government composed of elected representatives would be more inclined to put national interests ahead of the interests of factionalized groups than would a democratic government. According to Madison, “the nature of an extensive republic,” referring of course to the U.S., “will naturally frustrate the ability of a single faction to advance its own interests ahead of the interests of other citizens.” In a large country that contains an enormous number of varied interests “it becomes less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens” (Madison, 1787: Fed. #10). Madison viewed the vastness of the U.S., its present and potential growth, as an advantage in protecting the civil liberties of all citizens. He believed that a true democracy promoted by the Anti-Federalists would be a hindrance to liberty. The Federalist Papers were written by brilliant men who employed measured reasoning to first construct the Constitution and then argue for its acceptance. They alleged that a republican form of government would better serve the nation’s interests, specifically by strengthening its economy and security. It also would protect the civil liberties of the nation’s citizens more so than a democratic government. Though articulate and well-thought-out, the Federalist Papers did little to persuade the opposing opinion and did not smooth the path to ratifying the Constitution as intended. Ratification was ultimately gained only by negotiating the differing ideologies until both sides were placated though neither was completely satisfied with the resulting document that Americans today revere as the foundation of law and has been the blueprint for free governments since that time. Objections to the Constitution The Anti-Federalists found many problems with the proposed Constitution as written by the federalists believing that a centralized, representative government would be too authoritative. They were concerned that the states’ right to govern their own affairs would be subverted by what would become the same type of tyrannical government that the new country had just defeated to earn its independence. Many Americans still advocate the concept of ‘states rights’ to this day. Anti-federalists also believed that the office of President would become more like a dictator or king, an idea abhorrent to a nation that prized its freedoms. In addition, Anti-Federalists were worried that a centralized government could enact laws that would favor some states while hindering others. The main objection of the Anti-Federalists were that the Convention in Philadelphia had usurped its authority by creating a constitution, that it established a foundation for a dictatorial government and did not respect the rights of states to govern their own affairs. They agreed that a united nation would offer protection from an invading force but that this was not worth the price of individual liberty. “Compulsive or treacherous measures to establish any government whatever, will always excite jealousy among a free people. Better remain single and alone, than blindly adopt whatever a few individuals shall demand, be they ever so wise. I had rather be a free citizen of the small republic of Massachusetts, than an oppressed subject of the great American empire” (“A Dangerous Plan”, 1787). The Anti-Federalists argued that a federal government was in opposition to the motives for fighting the Revolutionary War. Local autonomy was prized in this period and, for many, a centralized government was equivalent to the tyrannical sovereignty present in Britain. The majority of Anti-Federalists wanted an agrarian democratic system which describes farmers (landowners) controlling local politics. Thomas Jefferson, a farmer with large land holdings, agreed. He thought that the agricultural community best fit the ideals of democracy and that commercialization and urbanization complemented the centralization of social and governmental power, a scenario which would lead to tyranny. However, Jefferson did, albeit reluctantly, support the Constitution. Anti-Federalists were also opposed to a centralized army believing it to be a detriment to democracy. “Standing armies are dangerous to the liberties of a people” (“Objections”, 1788). The More Valid Argument The Anti-Federalists, as history has proven, had the strongest argument. Their principal misgiving of the Constitution entailed the loss of self-rule among the individual states, that the powers of federal government would eventually overwhelm the autonomy of the states. Specifically, two of the phrases describing the responsibilities of government, the ability to enact ‘all laws necessary’ and ‘promote the general welfare’ bothered the Anti-Federalists. They believed these clauses used separately or together were in opposition to the spirit of the Constitution and the uniquely American conception of freedom. Invoking either clause allows the federal government to expand its powers to the point of monarchism. Today, states are held hostage by the federal government. Fearful that federal funds will be withheld if they do not toe the government line and understanding the fact that most legislation passed by local lawmakers cannot contradict federal law, states essentially refer to the federal government prior to making decisions. The Anti-Federalists predications came true although neither they nor the Federalists intended for states to surrender their sovereignty to the federal government. The Compromise Supporters and critics of the Constitution agreed on many points such as the necessity for a system of checks and balances. Both groups acknowledged that power tends to corrupt even the most virtuous and that one branch of government should not wield more power than another. Most agreed that a representative government was the preferred method. Because the Federalists argument that the Constitution did not allow for the abuse of power was not accepted by the general public, Anti-Federalists were able to inject the Bill of Rights to better specify the rights of citizens. Federalists argued that states had their own bill of rights which protected then against abuses by a federal government and ensured their autonomy. Federalists also claimed the Constitution contained an abridged version of a bill of rights spread throughout its texts and adding more would ultimately result in the government assuming greater powers than intended. In the Federalist Number 84, Alexander Hamilton threatened that a bill of rights would deny actually freedoms. “They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted and imply that the national government could do anything not specifically prohibited” (Hamilton, 1787). Evidently few if any states or citizens bought into this argument, probably because the Federalist argument contradicted their own words, that the Constitution should be based on explicitly defined rights. The Bill of Rights has become the most important and invoked portion of the Constitution and has come to exemplify the freedoms Americans cherish. The Federalists had the upper hand from the beginning. Immediately following the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the Federalists began the political rhetoric and organizing support for their side. As part of the Constitution, Article Five, only nine of the thirteen states were required to adopt it for it to be the law of the land, the founding principles of the new nation. The Anti-Federalists were out-maneuvered but nearly gained enough votes to defeat the Constitution. They did however garner enough support, therefore sufficient power, to force the Federalists to add the Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists lost the ratification battle but won the war with regards to the way the Constitution would function in theory and practice. The Tenth Amendment which essentially states that the federal government cannot enact laws not specifically given to it by the Constitution and that the states can restrict the powers of government symbolized the input of the Anti-Federalists. Realistically, the Tenth Amendment did little to restrict the powers of government but philosophically speaking, signified that the Constitution was not meant to be a consolidation of states under a national government but represented a genuinely federal system as the Anti-Federalists had advocated from the beginning. In sum, the Constitution proposed and heavily lobbied for by the Federalists was ultimately adopted but Anti-Federalists were able to determine the way it was to be interpreted then and in the future. Would I have been a supporter or an opponent of the Constitution? I would have fallen on the side of the Anti-Federalists because they championed the rights of states and individuals while advocating limits on the power given by the people to the federal government. The Founding Fathers trusted that future generations would follow the intentions and literal words of the Constitution and retain the balance of powers it outlined. Because too much power was provided to the federal government, as the Anti-Federalists feared, this balance has shifted towards the Executive Branch over the past six years or so. The present system of government would remind the Founders of the tyrannical, oppressive monarchy that it fought during the revolution. Perhaps if they could have seen a couple of hundred years into the future, all of them would have been of the Anti-Federalist opinion. References “A Dangerous Plan of Benefit Only to the Aristocratick Combination.” (Anti-Federalist Paper #1). The Boston Gazette and Country Journal. (November 26, 1787). September 18, 2007 Hamilton, Alexander. “Federalist Paper #24.” The Federalist Papers. (1787). September 18, 2007 < http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_24.html> Jay, John. “Federalist Paper #2.” The Federalist Papers. (1787). September 18, 2007 Madison, James. “Federalist Paper #10.” The Federalist Papers. (1787). September 18, 2007 “Objections to a Standing Army.” (Anti-Federalist Paper #24). The New York Journal. (January 17, 1788). September 18, 2007 Read More