Federalists and Anti-Federalists on Government Essay

Introduction

After gaining independence from Great Britain, Americans needed a new system of governance to replace the Articles of Confederation, which had left the states autonomous and lacking a strong central government. The Constitution was drafted to address this issue, but it sparked a sharp division among Americans, with federalists supporting the document and anti-federalists opposing it. While both sides recognized the danger of power abuse, federalists believed that ratifying the Constitution would empower the central government to prevent such abuse.

Main body

Order custom essay Federalists and Anti-Federalists on Government Essay with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Both federalists and anti-federalists were acutely aware of the potential for power to be misused, having experienced British tyranny firsthand. The federalists believed that ratifying the Constitution would be the best solution, as it would give the central government the power to oversee and regulate the actions of the individual states.

For example, Wilson argued that it was necessary to put limits on the power of the legislature through legal binding documents to prevent abuse. On the other hand, the anti-federalists believed that the Constitution would not adequately protect the interests of the states and their citizens.

The anti-federalists held a different perspective from the federalists regarding the new constitution. Their major concern was the excessive power that would be vested in the central government. This perspective sparked several debates before the document was ratified. The anti-federalists argued that giving too much power to the Congress would render the states powerless.

They feared that citizens would not be adequately represented by the government, especially due to the vastness of America. They rejected the idea of one representative per state, believing that it would not be enough to represent the opinions of hundreds of thousands of people.

Furthermore, the anti-federalists were concerned that a powerful central government would enact policies that would not be favorable to the common man. For example, they raised concerns about the economic security of farmers, fearing that the government would impose excessive taxes that would impoverish them. The anti-federalists also believed that imposing a state tax would be unfair since different states had varying needs and resources. They warned of the possibility of heavy taxation, which could have economically destroyed a state.

All these fears stemmed from the anti-federalists' aversion to the idea of absolute power being given to a central government. They believed in the autonomy of the states and opposed the idea of a federal government overriding state governments. They were afraid that the government would interfere with state affairs, leading to tyrannical leadership similar to that of the previous colonial masters.

In contrast to the anti-federalists, Madison held a different perspective as a prominent federalist voice in the federalist papers. He argued that smaller units of governance were more susceptible to tyranny since leaders could easily manipulate and influence smaller groups of people. He contended that larger populations provided a larger pool of representatives to select from, resulting in a higher quality of governance and fair competition.

Regarding absolute power being given to the central government, the federalists viewed the issue objectively. Madison asserted that effective governance required a more powerful government than the people it governed, while still preserving their freedom. In Federalist 39, he explained that the proposed constitution formed a composite and federal system, ensuring a balance of power.

Madison, one of the prominent voices of the Federalist Papers, argued that a composite and federal government was the most effective way to govern the people. He explained that the government would have certain powers, such as taxation and the election of the House of Representatives, that directly impacted the people. At the same time, the different states would function as smaller parts of the bigger government, enhancing the efficiency of the states while strengthening the nation as a whole.

However, the fear of the anti-federalists was that a powerful government would infringe upon the basic human rights of the people. This concern led to the debate over the bill of rights. The anti-federalists argued that it was necessary to have a way to protect the common man from government interference.

During the drafting process, the convention raised critical issues such as the third amendment, which addressed the right to privacy. The anti-federalists' idea was to have a form of protection for the people to ensure that the central government did not use its power to infringe upon their rights.

The anti-federalists had another major concern, which was the duration of constitutional office holders' terms. For instance, they were not satisfied with the proposed six-year terms for senators. They suggested that senators should serve for only one year, and that no one should serve as a senator for more than five years.

The federalists disagreed, arguing that this would result in a senate that is not deliberative enough as they would be afraid of going against the will of the electorate (Madison, 131).

Foreign influence was also a contentious issue. The anti-federalists believed that a central government exposed the wider population to interference from other countries. One author warned that the new constitution would create a national government that would not have the necessary means to prevent foreign influence, which could lead to civil strife and even civil war.

This view was echoed in a paper entitled "Adoption of the Constitution will lead to civil war," written by Philanthropos. The anti-federalists also expressed concerns about the economic security of farmers, fearing that the federal government would impose excessive taxes on them and leave them impoverished. One article even warned people to expect heavy taxation as a means of raising revenue. The federalists, however, saw the constitution as an opportunity for growth for the common man.

They believed that the infrastructure created by the central government would contribute to the stability of the country, which would have a trickle-down effect on the common man.

In contrast, the anti-federalists held a contrary opinion. They believed that centralization would only benefit those in power, while leaving those at the bottom worse off. They saw the enlarged power of the government as an opportunity for abuse, rather than progress for the citizens.

In conclusion, the debates between the federalists and the anti-federalists regarding the new constitution can be regarded as beneficial since they led to the creation of a constitution that is widely regarded as one of the best in the world. Although the two groups disagreed on many issues, they both recognized the need for a system to prevent tyranny. The only difference was their approach to achieving this goal.

References

1. Chin, Stern. Oracle Think Quest. 1997. Web.
2. Madison, John. From Parchment to Power. New York: America Enterprise Institute, 1997.
3. Storing, Henry and Murray, Dickson. What The Anti-Federalist Were For. University of Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1981.
4. Wilson, Joseph. The founders constitution: Federal Vs Consolidated Government. 1787. Web.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer