Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

The Compromise reached by the delegates during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 did not end the disagreements between the participants. Moreover, the controversies shifted from the debates on the different plans presented during the Convention to a struggle over the ratification process between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. After the delegates signed the Constitution at the Federal Convention, the instrument was submitted to the States for popular ratification (McClellan, 2000, p.381). Two competing blocks emerged. On the one hand, the Anti-Federalists opposed adopting the Constitution; foremost, they ‘‘opposed any fundamental change in the existing relationship between the Confederation government and the States’’ (McClellan, 2000, p.385). On the other hand, the Federalists defended the Constitution by explaining and justifying its provisions. In their respective essays, the core issue of the struggle between Anti-Federalists and the Federalists is the distribution of powers between the federal and state governments.

First, the ‘‘Anti-Federalists’ main objection to the proposed Constitution was that it created a central government that was too strong’’ (McClellan, 2000, p.385). In Brutus I (1787), the Anti-Federalists claimed the necessary and proper clause, the supremacy clause, and the judicial power have the potentiality to transform America from a system of Confederate states into a complete consolidated government: ‘‘Although the government reported by the Convention does not go to a perfect and entire consolidation, yet it approaches so near to it, that it must if executed, certainly and infallibly terminate in it’’ (Brutus I). In their description of the features of the national government proposed by the Constitution, Anti-Federalists exhibited the characteristics of a consolidated government, leaving less power to the States and granting much power to the federal government. Such an Anti-Federalist view appears in the following arguments presented in Brutus I and read as follows:

‘‘This government is to possess absolute and uncontrollable power, legislative, executive and judicial, concerning every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared “that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the preceding powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or any department or office thereof.” And by the 6th article, it is declared “that this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby anything in the constitution, or the law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” Therefore, it appears from these articles that there is no need for any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government and that the Constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this Constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. — The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation.’’

From the Anti-Federalist’s worldview, the Constitution aimed to establish a consolidated empire with unlimited powers over state governments (McClellan, 2000, pp. 385-392). Moreover, in Brutus II, Anti-Federalists claim that the absence of the Bill of Rights confirmed that the proposed Constitution would annihilate the blessings of liberty and individual rights in favor of an expanded national government. According to Anti-Federalists, the universal political experience informs that ‘‘those who governed have been found in all ages ever active to enlarge their powers and abridge the public liberty’’ (Brutus II). Also, the Bill of Rights incorporated in the Constitution provides for the security and the preservation of the rights of the people: ‘‘The country from which we have derived our origin is an outstanding example of this. Their Magna Carta and Bill of Rights have long been the boast, as well as the security, of that nation. I need to say no more, I presume, to an American than that this principle is a fundamental one in all the constitutions of our states; there is not one of them but what is either founded on a declaration or bill of rights or has certain express reservation of rights interwoven in the body of them.’’

Lastly, the Anti-Federalists argued that in establishing a consolidated government, the Constitution introduced an inconsistent ‘‘apportionment of representatives in the senate in the apportionment of representatives in the senate’’ (Brutus III). Quoting Montesquieu, who advocated for the individual participation of each citizen in public affairs through the designation of their representatives, Anti-Federalists claimed that the apportionment of representatives in the Senate was not democratic because it did not consider the size of the population in each state: ‘‘How unreasonable, and unjust then is it, that Delaware should have a representation in the Senate, equal to Massachusetts, or Virginia? The latter of which contains ten times her numbers and is to contribute to the aid of the general government in that proportion?’’ (Brutus III).

On the contrary, the Federalists argued that the Constitution disallowed concentration of power, that no ‘‘single government, either Federal or State, possessed all the powers of government’’, because the political power was ‘‘divided between two levels of government under the principle of federalism’’ (McClellan, 2000, pp. 393-394). In Federalist Paper no. 46 (1788), Madison explained that the federal government and the States were ‘‘substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States.’’ In other words, the Constitution did not institute a supreme federal government over the rights of the people, nor a super national government over the States. Furthermore, Madison’s argument culminated in a constitutional distribution of powers based on the principles of equality between the two sovereignties: ‘‘The federal and state governments are, in fact, but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers and designed for different purposes.’’ Based on the experience of human nature and the temptation of expansion of the national government, Madison, if the ‘‘federal government may feel an equal disposition with the state governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments.’’ ?From the Federalists’ view, the separation of powers between each level of government constitutes a guarantee against absolute tyranny by providing the people with a two-security system: each level of government can protect the citizens from the abuse of power of the other. Moreover, in Federalist Paper no. 45, Madison describes the national government’s powers as enumerated powers, while the ‘‘powers reserved in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.’’

The additional Federalist’s argument striking down the consolidation of national government criticized in Brutus I, II, and III is the principle of checks and balances explained in Federalist Paper no. 51. Because the three branches of government could collude themselves in a tyrannic exercise of powers against the people, the Federalists thought that enable the state governments to check on the national government and vice versa, could secure the civil rights of citizens: ‘‘If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal government controls would be necessary. In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed and, in the next place, oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government, but experience has taught humanity the necessity of auxiliary precautions.’’

From a Biblical worldview, the Federalist thesis is consistent with the Biblical illustration of the first intergovernmental system. We find that the twelve tribes of Israel, instead of existing as independent sovereignties, conveyed to form a nation committed to serving the Lord under the leadership of Joshua in the promised land (Joshua 24:1-27, NIV). In addition, despite the internal political organization within each tribe since Moses appointed some elders to assist him in the management of public affairs (Exodus 18:13-26), the Lord God gave only one king to lead Israel as a nation, one central government with twelve well-organized tribes (I Samuel 8).

References:

Brutus. “Brutus I.” Essay, October 18, 1787. From Teaching American History. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/brutus-i/ ?

Brutus. (1787). Brutus II. Essay. From Teaching American History. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/brutus-ii/

Brutus. (1787). Brutus III. Essay. From Teaching American History. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/brutus-iii/ ?

Madison, J. (1788). Federalist No. 45. Essay. From Teaching American History. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/federalist-no-45/ ?

Madison, J. (1788). Federalist No. 46. Essay. From Teaching American History. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/federalist-no-45/

Madison, J. (1788). Federalist No. 51. Essay. From Teaching American History. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/federalist-no-51/

McClellan, J. (2000). Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government. Carmel, Indiana: Liberty Fund, Inc.

?

?