Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

The Federalists vs. The Anti-Federalists

Better Essays
1265 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The Federalists vs. The Anti-Federalists
When deciding whether the Constitution better embodied the American commitment to democracy (republicanism), or whether it produced a greater compromise to it, one must define the nature of a republican government. Both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist set forth their distinctive views on the quality of representational government, but it was James Madison and Alexander Hamilton vision I feel was the most correct. By accepting their view, it is clear that they propose the best arguments for why the Constitution establishes a greater democratic state then the Articles of Confederation. In their opposing arguments, Samuel Adams and Richard Henry Lee see the two distinctive problems with the Constitution, with regard to its democratic nature: the character of the judiciary and the process by which the executive is put into office. I will argue that federalist provide greater justification for why these two branches enumerated in the Constitution are indeed democratic (as examined through the Federalist view of republican government). First I will discuss how each side's view of "republican" government differs.

The Constitution proposed by the Federal Convention in 1787 provided the basis for a strong national government. Elections to the House of Representatives were by the people directly, not the states, and the federal powers over taxes and the raising of armies were completely independent of the state governments. (pp. 71,73) This new form of federalism essentially produced a new form of republicanism, the large republic. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, in writing the Federalist Papers, provide the strongest arguments in support of it. Federalist No. 10 justified the new form of republicanism, not only as the price of union but also as the republican remedy to the disease of majority faction, or majority tyranny. (pp. 85-86) Because the Federalists saw a major danger not from the increasing power of the ruling few, but from the tyranny of the majority, they sought to restrain the influence of that majority in order to secure individual rights and the permanent and collective interests of the community. Such restraint was to be achieved through a large extended sphere, i.e. the constituencies of the federal government. These would be larger and more diverse than the constituencies of the states, and so would make majority tyranny more difficult, since more negotiation and compromise would be needed for any single faction to become part of a majority. Similarly, the increased competition for office would produce better representatives and a more effective administration throughout the government. Madison understood republican government to require only that offices of government be filled directly or indirectly by popular vote. (pp. 87) Furthermore, the representation of the people was satisfied by the fact of election, regardless of the contrast between the wealth and influence of the elected and the electorate. Samuel Adams and Richard Henry Lee (Anti-Federalists) believed that to maintain the character of republican government, which was the best defense against tyranny, individuals needed to know one another, be familiar with their governments, and have some direct experience in government. (pp.125) Only then would the citizenry possess a genuine love of country, which is the essence of republican, or civic, virtue. (pp. 126) The Anti-Federalists supported the then traditional view of republican government, reflected in the first state constitutions, which emphasized the legislative branch of government. With the first federal constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the states, through their legislatures, retained control of federal men and federal measures. The delegates to Congress were chosen by the state legislatures and were subject to being recalled. The federal power to raise taxes and armies not only required a vote of nine states, but, even after such a vote, it depended on state requisitions, which meant that the federal government depended on the good will of the states to execute the law. (pp. 53) Because the Anti-Federalists emphasized participation in government, they argued that a small territory and a basically homogeneous population were necessary for a notion of the public good to be agreed upon. The Anti- Federalists did not insist that every citizen exercise legislative power. But they did emphasize representation of the people in the legislatures and on juries. By "representation" they meant that the number of people in a legislative district must be small enough and the number of districts large enough so that the citizens will know the people they are voting for and be able to elect one of their own-one of the "middling class."(pp.125)

Though the Anti-Federalists felt a stronger form of government was needed, they saw the Constitution contained too much of an aristocratic character, mostly in respect to the Congress. They saw both the Senate and Judiciary branch (supreme court) lacking a democratic nature. In the article (article 1 section 3) referring to the appointment of Senators it states that two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, would serve six-year terms and be given one vote. The first problem argued by the Anti-Federalist was that the Senators would not be directly elected to office by the people, but rather appointed by the state legislatures. This way of appointment is almost identical to the way members of the continental congress were appointed outlined in the Articles of Confederation. The anti-federalists wanted to maintain individual power, and by having the government of the states appointing their own representation gave the each state a greater democratic voice. But I say that the Anti-Federalist argument falls short when looking at the makeup of the other half of the Congress, the House of Representatives. Article I section 2 provides that the House of Representatives be a delegation consisting of members elected through direct elections by the people. This article provides the best defense for why the constitution is a more democratic document then the articles of confederation. Here we see that this part of the legislature is directly accountable to the public.

The Anti-Federalists objected as well to the extensive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Article III section 2 may have guaranteed a jury trial in criminal cases, but on appeal, the fate of the defendant would be up to the judges. The Anti-Federalists wanted to have the right of jury trials extended to civil cases and to have the results protected against appellate review. The argument can be made that it is essential for the highest court in the land to be one not subject to popular influence, but rather should be a group consisting of individuals with extensive understanding of the law. (pp. 112)

The Constitution states in Article II (section 2) that the executive shall appoint the judges to the Supreme Court and that their appointment must be conferred upon by two thirds of the Senate. (pp.75) This is one of the prime objections the Anti-Federalist make to the Constitution. They see the Supreme Court undemocratic due to the fact that the judges presiding on it will be appointed rather then elected. But Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, argues that it is essential for the members of the court to be free from legislative encroachment. (pp. 112)

The Anti-Federalists lost the ratification debate because they failed to present a clear and convincing account of a constitutional plan that stood between the Articles of Confederation, which they acknowledged was unable to provide for the requirements of union, and the Constitution proposed by the Federal Convention, which they feared would produce a consolidation of power. And yet the periodic and contemporary constitutional debates over federalism, over the extent of legislative and executive power, and over individual rights and judicial review reflect the different conceptions of republican government that were developed in the founding dialogue over the Constitution.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    1. Thomas Abraham Clark, the son of a prominent Philadelphia lawyer, was born to extreme wealth. He was educated at home by private tutors, and entered local politics at a very early age. He soon rose to the top of his state in politics. Having traveled extensively in Europe, he is obsessed with the tyranny of European governments. He has corresponded with Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson. He is convinced that a strong government headed by a king is and has been, the curse of mankind throughout history. Under the Articles of Confederation, Thomas's law practice has prospered, but he is concerned over the inflated value of some colonial currency. 

Thomas Abraham Clark is a ...…

    • 1577 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Imagine oneself back at the constitutional convention in seventeen eighty-seven. All of the brightest minds and most respected people in one place, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the southeast of the state, near New York. Because it is May, and just beginning to be summer, it is hot, and because all the windows are closed in the interest of secrecy, it is stifling as well. Fifty-five well known thinkers of the age, all white males, have come. They range in age from James Madison, an up-and-comer and a prodigy who is twenty five to Benjamin Franklin, a wise, venerable, learned man who is eighty one. Delegates from eleven states are present, New Hampshire not turning up until July, and Rhode Island not at all, thinking to veto the proceedings by their absence. The problem that had caused these proceedings was that the Articles of Confederation, the current system of government was too weak. although the Northwest Ordinance resulted of it, and it fixed the fear of a strong central government and dominance by large states, there were unfair competition among states, unenforceable trade agreements, no power over states governments, no president, no judicial branch and the government could not pay debts because they could not force states to pay taxes. As the cons out-weighed the pros, it was clear that something had to be done. The framers decided to create a new government completely. The question was; How do we give the government the power it needs while preventing tyranny? This essay will address the many and varied was the constitution guards against tyranny. In this essay, the word tyranny refers to James Madison’s definition, which states, “The accumulation of all powers…in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many (is) the very definition of tyranny.” (James Madison, Federalist Paper #47, Hook Document). The constitution addresses tyranny in four main ways: the balance of powers between national and state…

    • 1740 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The different biased policies of which Federalists believed in interpreting the Constitution broadly, while Jeffersonian Republicans (Anti-Feds) believed it should be interpreted strictly, continued through the presidencies of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. However, throughout both of their terms, both parties eventually “switched” their ideals, and followed the other party’s belief. “Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a singled government” (Doc. A) is a letter from Jefferson to Granger, then the complete opposite is written in Doc F, where Randolph talks about how the J. Republicans abandon their original principles. This is just one example of how later the two parties ideals were “switched.” Actions such as the Louisiana Purchase, the Embargo Act, and the establishment of the Second National Bank show this.…

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    “In The Federalist No. 51...James Madison wrote in defense of a proposed national constitution that would establish a structure of checks and balances between the different departments of the government and, as a result, constrain the government’s oppression of the public” (R. Higgs). James Madison advocated for a strong federal government rather than weak government with a strong state government. A strong federal allowed the states to be united with the sacrifice of being government by a powerful few. Anti federalists argued this was similar to the monarchy they had just escaped. Federalists also wanted to ratify the Constitution to protect the rights of the people by constraining the powers of each of the government branches. (Levine and…

    • 493 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    On the heels of the revolutionary war and the failed attempt of a national government (The Articles of Confederation), the leaders of the United States set to make a stronger, centralized government, with dual sovereignty between the national government and the states. The rules of this governing body would be laid out in a document called the Constitution. Although most leaders supported the constitution they did not agree on many aspects of it. Out of the disagreement two groups emerged, the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. The Federalist supported all aspects of the constitution and a larger national government, while the Anti-Federalist opposed ratifying the constitution and supported a smaller national government and more sovereignty to the states. This disagreement led to a fierce debate between the two groups that still resonates today. This essay will examine the primary…

    • 591 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    During the early years of our nation, there was not a great deal of brotherly love, peace and agreement that could be found in the government. Two political parties had evolved that possessed interests that spanned both ends of every argument and political idea. The Federalists believed that the nation should have a very centralized government and stood firm that this would bring about the most order and prosperity. To the contrary, Republicans wanted the rights to stay with the people and States and therefore felt that the federal government should have little control to protect the rights of the people. Many historical documents record the struggles between the two parties. The main struggles revolved around three areas. The first area…

    • 866 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Federalists believed in a strong central government. They supported the Constitution, central banking and financial policies as a way to cure the economy. They wished to depend on the nation, rather than the state, to provide security and counsel. Most Federalists were artisans, merchants and large farm owners.…

    • 227 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Federalists believed that a strong central government was needed because of the cruel remarks that were made against America in European courts. (Doc. 1) These remarks led the…

    • 536 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    1998 Dbq Essay

    • 1116 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Following the making of the Constitution, James Madison brought forth the warning of political factions or parties as we know today in one of his many inputs into the Federalist Papers. As the Constitution was offered among the states to be ratified, two groups rose in effect of differing opinions on the document, and these two groups were known as the supporters, Federalists, and the opposition, Antifederalists. After eventual political compromise and the beginning of a new government, these parties did not disappear, yet instead became much stronger. In one corner stood the Federalists who believed in broad constructionism of the Constitution and used it to enlarge the size of the national government and its’ powers. In the other corner stood the Antifederalists who soon became the Democratic-Republicans, and in opposition to the Federalist believed in a strict constructionism of the Constitution and often supporting the power of the state and its’ independence.…

    • 1116 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    During the period between its proposal in September 1787 and ratification in 1789, the United States Constitution was the subject of numerous debates. The contending groups consisted of Federalists, those who supported ratification, and Anti-Federalists, those opposed to the constitution. Each group published a series of letters known as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. The Anti-Federalist papers objected to provisions of the proposed constitution while the Federalist Papers defended the rationale behind the document. Anti-Federalist objections included that; the United States was too extensive to be governed by a republic, the constitution included no bill of rights, and the federal judiciary was vaguely defined and could become too powerful. Each of these arguments is worthy of attention as an examination of the debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the proposed Constitution.…

    • 1711 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    money, lack of respect by foreign powers, territories in the possession of a foreign power,…

    • 665 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Both sides had strong opinions and beliefs on the subject, but the side that I thought was more convincing was the Federalists side. I think the Federalists were right when they said America was in need of a stronger national government. If our government were to become weak, like the Anti-Federalists wanted, then our world would become a chaotic mess, the rules wouldn’t apply to everyone. I think that you need to have rules and laws to keep people in check, if we didn’t have them then everyone and everything would become crazy.…

    • 93 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The drafting of the new federal Constitution for the infant United States drew many staunch lines between federalists and antifederalists. These differences proved to be vast and in most cases complex, the antifederalists opposed the newly drafted constitution, while the federalists pushed for its ratification. These two primary views of how the United States government should function, made the ratification of the Constitution by no means a guarantee in 1787. Thus, the criticisms made by the antifederalists and the retorts returned by the federalists echoed the uncertainty of the United States in its infancy, plus these arguments demonstrated the blurred views on the “good society” and developed the Constitution into a document that preserved…

    • 698 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The development of the American Constitution was a battle between two opposing political philosophies during the late 1700’s. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties aroused at the formation and ratification of the Constitution. Both sides pointed out many arguments in order to find common ground in a governmental structure. The main conflict between the two parties revolved around the amount of power and control that the states and national government would obtain. As I am on the Federalist side, I support and agree to ratify the Constitution. For this will give America a second chance to fix what the Articles of Confederation could not achieve and unite all the thirteen colonies to end the boundaries and corruption in the government.…

    • 591 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    According to Mr. Budas, an eighth grade Social Studies teacher at McCord Junior High there are three major differences between the Federalist and the Anti Federalist. The first major difference is, the federalist believed in a strong central government and were for a new constitution. The Anti Federalist opposed the constitution. They believed that it would give the federal government too much power and they would revert back to how it was with Great Britain. Another major difference is, the federalist believed in representation and that it should be based on the population of the state. The anti federalist believed that states should have the same representation in Congress and that one person was not enough to represent so many people.…

    • 153 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays