Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:52 pm Post subject: Federalists and Anti-Federalists
From what I understood from the reading I pulled a few main arguments out for the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists. A recurring argument against a strong federal government is there will not be enough power left to the states to rule themselves. "These taken in connection with the others, and powers to raise armies and build navies, proposed to be lodged in this government, appear to me to comprehend all the essential powers in this community, and those which will be left to the states will be of no great importance." I can understand their fear that a federal government could end up like what the colonies had when the British ruled over them. When the British ruled over the colonies, the colonies had very little power and the British did not care much to do what was good for the colonists and instead did what was good for Britan. Another common theme against a federal government was that "it is not a fair and equal representation of the people even in proportion to its number, for the smallest state has as much weight in the Senate as the largest..." (25). I am having a hard time seeing why it would be bad to have two Senators per state like we do now. I think if it was based upon population the government would become to unstable and there would be a constant power struggle in the senate. Populations of states are changing all the time but I think the way our government is run and structured should remain as stable as possible unless there is a huge problem. One important point I thought an Anti-Federalist brought up is "Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed?" (213) I am not sure about this but I think that there is a law against something being taxed directly twice by the federal government and then by the state government. Could someone please explain this law more if there is such a law?
The very first article from The Federalist really caught my attention. It says ... "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principals of government, very similar in their manners and customs..." (217) It was just amazing to me to read this and realize just how much this country has changed since this article was written. The people in this country definitely are all not descended from the same ancestors, there are many different religions and customs practiced and many different languages spoken. It is incredible that throughout enormous changes the laws of this country still remain and work well in most cases today. One of the big arguments I thought the federalists had was that if there was one unified government the whole country would be able to provide more for its citizens, protect them better and be a very important and influential country in the world because of its size and all the natural resources it has. I was also a little confused about the difference between a republic and a pure democracy that was talked about on page 29. Could someone try to clarify this to me? Thanks!
So, I just did some research on the republic versus true democracy issue that Gigi brought up because I was confused on it myself. This is one site that I found particularly informative: http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.html.
The site mainly states that a democracy and a republic have the relatively same values except that "In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group". So therefore, it can be said that the USA is a republic (this is why when we say the pledge of allegiance when say "to the republic").
One thing that I found interesting in the reading that we also talked about in class today was the theme of change and having to sacrifice to get change. It seemed like all of the anti-federalists where afraid of change for various reasons dealing with power. They mainly didn't want the power in America to be in the hands of a few people. But, they also were afraid that their particular state would loose power. In general, the anti-federalist were afraid to risk loosing parts of the current system that they liked (like state power) in order to benefit the US as a whole.
So, I've got a quote to add on to what Natalie was saying (the theme of sacrifice and such). "for if these representatives are to pursue the general interest without constitutional checks and restraints, it must be done by a mutual sacrifice of the interests, wishes, and prejudices of the parts they represent- and then they cannot be said to represent those parts, but to misrepresent them." (Mercer, 26). So, in reading a quote like this, it becomes clear that the apprehensive attitude towards change in America was known. It's also an interesting quote because not only is the concept of sacrificing general power brought up, but in the quote, interests, wishes, and prejudices are all also high-lighted!
I'd also say that the conversation of state vs. federal or general power comes into fruition, which is interesting. It speaks to the relevance of sacrifice, and contributes to the question of how much people are willing to risk, and what they are ultimately trying to achieve.
I think the biggest issue for the Anti-Federalists is the fear of a national government to become too strong. “Having so recently fought a war for independence, they were not about to find themselves once more subject to an overbearing authority that was heedless of their rights and freedoms.” (22par.1). It is very understandable that they were worried about the government would over using power, and even the president’s personal decision for benefit would control the situation. Corruption was mentioned as one of the problems that the Anti-Federalists worried about as well—“As there is no one article of taxation reserved to the state governments, the Congress may monopolize every source of revenue, and thus indirectly demolish the state governments, for without funds they could not exist…” (25par.3). But I doubt that even the revenue could be distributed by each single State, it does not mean corruption would not happen. Another problem that troubles the opponents of the Constitution was their skeptic attitude to the representatives formed by less than 30 people. “Thus it appears that the liberties, happiness, interests, and great concerns of the whole United States may be dependent upon the integrity, virtue, wisdom, and knowledge of 25 or 26 men.” (25par.6), and I remarked on my page “that’s why it’s important to pick those men!” In the last page of the reading, Alexander Hamilton listed four reasons clearly why the Constitution should be supported which I think will be of great help to understand the argument from two sides.
I think the major divide that seperated the Anti Federalist and Federalist had more to do with America's class system than their view points. Based on the reading it stated the following: " The others in society, such as farmers, traders, and mechanics, who all ought to have a component number of their best informed men in the legislature, shall totally be unrepresented." (pg.25) With the minority being white rich males with land who had power during this time period, the majority often known as the poor felt the need to ensure that there was a Bill of Rights for their protection. With the fear of their rights being taken away, the federalist were able to respond to these concerns with the creation of our three branches of government which still stands today. When there was a constant battle over who had power, no one side recieved all of the benefits from the Articles of Confederation until both parties decided to merge their ideas in order to find a common ground.
Lastly, this reading made me consider whether or not Communism would have best suited our country back then or even in today's world?
After reading through the first few pages, I was quite surprised Thomas Jefferson was neither Federalist nor Anti Federalist. For someone of that magnitude to not affiliate themselves with the belief showed how no one truly knew what direction the nation should take. I also think it's important to realize many of the Federalists were Northerns, with the exception of Madison.
One of the greatest concerns of the Anti-Federalists over the potential formation of a federal government was that the consolidation in power that this created would compromise the state's authority. On pg.23 Richard Lee explains some of the powers the federal government would have such as to regulate trade between states, to collect taxes, and to form the militia. Then he goes on to say that "(the powers) which will be left to the states will be of no great importance." Also, on pg. 25 it is argued that all the tax revenue will go to the federal government, and thus destroying the state government. This all goes back to our discussion in class today about power - how it is finite and in order to have power there must be people without it. It seems to me that the Anti-Federalists aren't willing to take that risk of further consolidating power. They are afraid that the government will turn into an oligarchy dominated by wealthy men. (pg. 25 "...men of the most elevated rank in life will be chosen.") This is understandable because who else has the means to run for public office. I'd like to pose this question: If the government is run by a few wealthy men who's interests do you think they will serve?
On the top right of pg. 24 it makes it clear that the aristocracy supported the idea of a national government.
Another major issue with the Anti-Federalists was who/what states were and were not going to benefit from a federal government. There was the fear that the government would serve the interests of only a few "central" states yet overlook more remote states. (pg. 23) Yet later on a Federalist took an interesting stance effectively saying that maybe they won't be given benefits in terms of money and other traditional benefits but they will be given protection.
There was fear that a national government is too detached to competently solve local issues. But isn't that why a state government would still remain in place?
Another popular concern was that the structure of the government, specifically that of the executive branch and the Senate would come to work together to serve each others political interests. (pg. 24) But is there no accountability to the people, the same people for whom they get elected by or is the money and power they have able to influence those votes? We must consider who was allowed and who did vote at that time...white men with money and land. The same people who served/serve in public office.
There is the fear that a federal government will deprive the people of personal freedoms and rights...a good example is the satirical essay about the right to a trial by jury. I mean what conditions/laws are in place to prevent the government from taking our rights? Fast forward 200yrs and despite those laws, the Patriot Act still passed. So Its very reasonable for the Anti-Federalists to be concerned about the potential for the federal government to abuse their power.
I hate too make it seem a one-sided affair because the Federalist guys had some strong arguments too. Strong national security. The opportunity for expansionism. Better economy and communication.
The disagreement on whether to be federalist or anti federalist was a main factor in the beginning of the Civil War. The south wanted more state rights where as the north wanted more of a federal control on the country. This subject is debated even today. Today there is a federal rule with the states controlling most of the day to day aspects. Have you heard of Chrysalis School Montana?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
