The Federalists And The Anti-Federalists Essay, Research Paper
When comparing and contrasting Anti-Federalist views on the ratification of the United
States Constitution with those of the Federalists, there is the relationship that represents
their views upon principles, problems and solutions, which really looks at which side best
reflects or departs from the original principles set forth for the Declaration. It can be
argued that the two sides are quite contrary in their distinct perceptions, which each group
believing that its views are the right ones.
The debate raged on between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists as to what
ratification should be brought out with regard to the Constitution. This period of conflict
lasted from the moment the first draft was written in 1787 until such ratification was
imposed in 1789. As a result, this was a time of intense debate between the
Anti-Federalists and the Federalists. There were papers that were created from both sides
declaring to the fact that the ratification should either take place or should not, depending
upon which group one supported. As a collective work, each side gave significant points
that clearly illustrated their ideas. The Federalists, however, were the group that really
seemed to have influenced the minds of the citizens not only because their attempts
seemed to be more organized, but possibly more so because the Anti-Federalists failed to
really prove that small republics were better able to have individual liberties than were
large republics.
The Anti-Federalists were strongly opposed to any ratification of the Constitution.
Supporting this view were several different authors who composed strict papers that
reflected the Anti-Federalist belief. Within these works was found the reasoning behind
why the Anti-Federalists were against ratifying the Constitution. It focused upon the
dangers of tyranny and how it would weaken the essence of the Constitution. It was
argued that the Constitution was not well equipped to deal with a monarchy to which
England was in the habit of. Even though it was established that the Bill of Rights was
effective enough to correct some of those weaknesses, there still existed a lot of
considerations to cause the Anti-Federalists to continue opposing the Constitutional
ratification.
The Federalists, on the other hand, supported the ratification. Some people which
wanted this were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, who were
responsible for composing the collection of writings that came to be known as The
Federalist Papers. Basing their argument on the fact that the United States Constitution
was fundamentally created as a reflection of human attributes , the men pointed to such
examples as separation of powers and other warnings against the concept of
totalitarianism. They argued that any such actions only focused on the pessimistic side of
humanity.
Madison’s arguement asked if government was not the most significant of all human
reflection. He stated that if humanity consisted of angels, there wouldn t be any
government control at all. His point, as well as the point of other Federalists who
supported ratification, stated that there has to be control. They declared that the
Constitution was constructed so as to maintain a system of checks and balances in order to
vanish tyranny about which the Anti-Federalists were so concerned of.
Madison, Hamilton, and Jay made serious attempts to demonstrate how ratification
was a necessary evil in establishing the best Constitutional representation possible. While
arguing this issue of leadership, Madison stated that the educated and compassionate
citizens wouldn t always be the top. This fact was reason enough for the Constitution to
address such issues by limiting any harm done by the wrong leaders. Hamilton effectively
defended the Federalist viewpoint when he remarked that the country’s laws cannot be so
much that it confuses the people. He said that if they are hard to understand, then the
people wouldn t be able to intrepert them.
The Anti-Federalists had many concerns. They were concerned about the power of
taxation that the central government would have. They feared that outrageous taxes
would be forced upon the country’s inhabitants for everything from imports to land and
goods “at their sovereign pleasure.”
The Federalists saw the need for the power to tax by the national government.
Because the government under the Articles of the Confederation was quite inadequate in
producing revenues necessary to carry out its purposes they saw it necessary for the
national government to have the power to tax. Hamilton argued that the states unified
would be more likely to levy strong taxes than would the national government. In fact, as
a unified nation, there would be free trade among the states, which would help the national
economy. The power to levy taxes would be in the hands of the people’s representatives,
who could be trusted to act with what the common people wished, and if this was not so,
then new representatives could be elected.
The Anti-Federalists also raised uproar over the “necessary and proper” clause,
which empowered the government to make all laws judged “necessary and proper”; and
the “supreme law of the land” clause, which declared that all laws passed and all treaties
signed by the government were to be “the supreme law of the land; any thing in the
constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” They believed these
clauses would allow the local governments to be destroyed and individual liberties to be
eliminated. The Federalists, mainly Hamilton, dismissed these views as misrepresentation.
These backers were firm believers in the institution of “concurrent jurisdiction,” in which
the national government would have means in which to levy necessary taxes, while the
states retained their ability to tax too.
The Anti-Federalists saw many wrong ideas in the formation of a union, mainly in
the ones respect to the proposed Constitution. As far as the Senate was concerned, the
Anti-Federalists held the opinion that “the senate . . . is constituted on the most unequal
principles,” where as each state has equal representation in this body. Another argument
followed that the possibility of the President promoting the uprising of continuing the
corruption within the senate and construction of an aristocracy is too great and will lead to
the development of a government which can be described as the farthest thing from
balanced.
The Federalists sought out mostly to unite the states under this Constitution. In fact,
Madison carried out his promise to make the provisions for amendment and was key in
drafting the Bill of Rights.
The proposed structure of the judiciary was not as controversial as other elements
of the Constitution. Balancing the governmental powers, the judiciary was to remain
truly distinct from both the legislative and executive branches of the government, and it
was to act as a check on both. The federal courts would have jurisdiction and authority to
overrule state laws that were contrary to the Constitution, to facilitate interpretation of
national laws, and in regard to foreign citizens. Also, the federal courts would have
jurisdiction in conflicts between the states. The Anti-Federalists held objection to the lack
of provision for trial-by-jury. Hamilton argued that this did not mean that the right was
entirely abolished, and pointed out that the laws and constitutions of the various states did
not uphold a uniform standard in regard to this issue. Regarding the issue of the Court’s
ability to invalidate acts of Congress, much debate has arisen over the years, and the issue
remains a topic of the argument.
It was obvious to all parties that the constitution was not perfect. However, the
Federalists argued that it should be accepted as it was without any alteration, as provision
had been made for amending it later. Under the circumstances, they argued that it was the
best plan set forth thus far. The Anti-Federalists did not seem to be able to answer the
arguments of the Federalists such that the new plan would be false, and thus since a
majority was not willing to discard the the strengths of the proposed constitution, the
document was ratified. Those arguments were answered quickly as the first ten
amendments, or Bill of Rights, was appended to the Constitution shortly after its
ratification. The Anti-Federalists held many valuable and impactful arguments in
opposition to the formation of the union under the new constitution. However, idea that
carried the proposition was far too strong for this opposition to fight with. They simply
could not prove that the government at that time was more superior than the one
described. This failure may have caused the evolution of one of the greatest democratic
republics the world has ever seen.
358