Federalists v. Anti-Federalists

Transcription

1 For American political leaders in the late 1700s, designing a new government did not come easily. After committees worked to draft the Constitution, the document still needed to be ratified, or approved, by the states. Two groups emerged in the country with strong views on how the government should be set up: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Leaders came forth on both sides. Famed Federalists were John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Anti-Federalist leaders included Patrick Henry, George Mason, and John Winthrop. Federalists wanted to ratify the Constitution as written, and the Anti-Federalists did not. The two groups disagreed on how much power individuals and the government should have. Both sides presented strong arguments, but because the Constitution was ultimately ratified, it was the Federalists who had the greatest influence on determining the path of the government of the United States. Anti-Federalists were concerned about several key issues. First, they feared the loss of state powers. They were also concerned about a political system that was too similar to the British system. Another worry was the loss of individual rights, which could be solved through a bill of rights. A final Anti-Federalist concern was the call for a federal army. Let s look at each of these issues in greater depth. The Anti-Federalists had serious concerns about a strong federal government. Patrick Henry expressed concern that the Constitution would not allow states to maintain their own governments and rules and also worried that states would be stripped of power. A lack of state power, he believed, would leave states unable to work Patrick Henry supported independence but opposed the adoption of the Constitution. He thought that it created a federal government with too much power. together on issues. Instead, states would be constantly turning to the federal government for help with every little issue. The Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution put the states in an inferior position. Anti-Federalists were also skeptical of the Constitution because they thought it would create a government structure too similar to the British monarchy. They were wary of the powers of the executive branch and did not think that the rights of the people were protected by the Constitution as it was drafted. Henry saw the dangers of a few ambitious people taking over the government and Discovery Education Techbook Discovery Communications, LLC 1

2 turning it into an oppressive body rather than a democracy. The last thing this new country should do, they argued, is mimic the very form of government, the British Parliament, they were desperate to be rid of. Anti-Federalists were also worried that the Constitution did not give individuals enough power in the government. They saw the power of the country as existing within its people. In other words, the power of the government should come from the involvement of individuals, at every level, not from a distant federal government. With a strong federal government, Anti- Federalists worried that individual rights would suffer. They assumed that the central government would weaken the influence of common people. Anti-Federalists feared that Alexander Hamilton published a series of papers on Federalist views of the Constitution. He signed his papers Publius to remain anonymous. individuals would not have enough power to effectively challenge an inadequate or oppressive government. Anti-Federalists pushed for the addition of a bill of rights to the Constitution. No individual right should be sacrificed for the sake of the federal government, they argued. In the minds of Anti-Federalists, individual liberty is the purest form of freedom and should be carefully protected. They called for clear wording on freedom of the press and the right to a trial by jury. If there was to be any compromise, the Anti-Federalists refused to sacrifice individual rights to a centralized government. Although the Constitution called for a standing army, Anti-Federalists disagreed with this idea. This meant that the country would have an army in times of peace as well as during war. Anti-Federalists worried about how the army would be used during peace. Patrick Henry feared that the army would be used to punish those who opposed government actions. He also questioned how people could resist a tyrannical government if it had an army behind it. A standing army was too similar to Britain s armies, which the colonists had just fought. Lastly, there was fear that the federal government could use the army against the states. If Congress limited the militia each state could have, the states would be powerless if Congress acted aggressively towards them. Discovery Education Techbook Discovery Communications, LLC 2

3 The Federalists listened to and debated the arguments of the Anti-Federalists. They had different opinions on all of the issues the Anti-Federalists presented. Let s now take a look at the Federalist arguments in favor of the Constitution. Federalists argued that the Articles of Confederation had created a weak union that caused a fractured economy. If states were left to regulate their own trade, for example, they would all make decisions only for one state. This could lead to decisions that did not benefit the nation as a whole. With a strong federal government, the states would be united behind a single central body. This central government could then regulate trade and commerce among the states. A central government would also manage international relations in a consistent way rather than have states conduct their own foreign policies. This would ensure that the security of the government was upheld and all citizens protected. Federalists believed that the Constitution provided a national power to govern common issues among the states and would truly unite the country. Although the Anti-Federalists worried about the voice of the individual, the Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton thought the Constitution created a government in which the individual was very important. This is because the Constitution established a republic in which citizens would choose leaders. Through voting, all individuals could have their voices heard. The Federalists also responded to attacks that a federal government would be too similar to the British system. They pointed out that the Constitution clearly stated that no leader would have a title of nobility. In effect, the aristocracy was removed from America. The separation of powers into three branches would prevent any one part of the government from becoming too powerful. The Federalists believed that because there was no ruling class or monarchy, people would have a way to be heard through representatives. Citizens would hold influence in the government by voting for their representatives. One huge issue of debate between the two sides was the inclusion of a bill of rights. The Federalists saw it as unnecessary because it repeated rights already established in the Constitution. To help explain their thoughts, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote a series of letters called the Federalist Papers. These were essays that explained different reasons ratifying the Constitution was a good decision for the country. In one essay, Hamilton pointed out that Article III of the Constitution covers the right to trial by jury. There was no need, he argued, to repeat this right in a separate bill of rights. He worried that repeating rights would actually make the document less clear. Discovery Education Techbook Discovery Communications, LLC 3

4 Whenever possible, the Federalists wanted things clearly spelled out in the Constitution. If too many things were left for states to interpret, there could be vast differences among the states. It was this attitude that led them to request a standing army. Federalists thought that a national army was needed in both war and peace for the protection of all people. They worried that if states were left to create their own armies, each state could interpret the rules differently. Some states might have weak armies, which could make national security suffer. State armies, they argued, would be untrained and would be a weak link in national security. Federalists believed that state-run militias would leave the nation too weak to defend itself. The Constitution sparked great debate among leaders of the new country. The argument at times was heated but ultimately helped define the role of the federal government and strengthen the country. The Federalists did have to bend their stance, and the amendments in the Bill of Rights were accepted as part of the Constitution. Even so, the Federalists felt they had won a victory: a strong federal government. This victory was not easy and was greatly debated. In the end, this discussion between Federalists and Anti-Federalists ensured that the Constitution was not accepted before it was discussed, debated, and revised. Thanks to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, the debate also led to clear protections of individual rights and limits on the powers of the new government. While each side conceded points to eventually ratify the Constitution, their arguments helped regular citizens to see all sides of the issues and come to understand and accept the powers of the new government. Discovery Education Techbook Discovery Communications, LLC 4

5 After reading the passage, answer the following questions: 1. Federalists thought the Articles of Confederation A. should be the basis for the new government. B. should be added to the Constitution as the Bill of Rights. C. created problems in the country, such as a weak economy. D. created a strong foundation for international trade. 2. Anti-Federalists opposed a standing national army because A. it left the states vulnerable to an aggressive government. B. they did not want to pay for soldiers training and housing. C. the state militia would not be trained well. D. they wanted to encourage friendly relations with France and Spain. 3. Federalists believed that adding a Bill of Rights would A. make the Constitution stronger. B. make the Constitution weaker. C. have little effect on the country. D. change the republic to a monarchy. 4. Anti-Federalists were afraid that the new government would be similar to a monarchy. Do you think they were right to have this worry? Why or why not? Explain your answer using specific evidence from the reading passage. Discovery Education Techbook Discovery Communications, LLC 5