The United States of America, in its earliest years, was held together by a very feeble tie. There was great need for a good government to manage the general affairs of the country. And to protect the liberties of each individual citizen and the rights of each local state government. Though the question of exactly how this government was to be run was in great debate.
In 1987, a Convention of the States assembled to present. A proposed constitution that would supposedly provide a solution to the problem. The debate over it raged for months, some in favor of it, others against it. Those in favor of the proposed federal government in the Constitution were called Federalists. Those opposed to it were called Antifederalists. The Antifederalists argued that the proposed. Government was not a good idea for the newborn country. Being both impractical and unfeasible. In order to determine whether the federal government proposed. By the Constitution was both practical and feasible at that time, and remains so, both sides of the argument must be examined to see which is stronger.
In the essay ‘Brutus I,’ the Antifederalists argue that the Constitution does in fact propose a federal government, but that this federal government will not always remain as it is, since its federal branches possess too much power. It will eventually become a national government, or one great republic, unless there is a balance of that power. As a national government, or one great republic, it will possess absolute and uncontrollable power, as is seen in the last clause of Article 1, section 8, and Article 6 of the Constitution.
Very little power then will be left to the States, and there will become no purpose for the existence of individual States. Those in office will have an unlimited power of taxation, which, in evil governments, is the great mean of oppression and tyranny; the power to raise a standing army, both in times of war and peace; and furthermore, the power to override any State law and pass any law they see fit. This proposed government will only lead to a consolidation of the powers of the States into one general government and to the destruction of liberty. Men, once given power, will always yield that power to increase it and remove any obstacle to this end.
They continue to argue, that one great republic in a country as extensive as America is not practical. The wisest and greatest men who ever thought and wrote about the science of government show that a free republic can never successfully govern a country of such massive proportions with so many inhabitants and ever increasing population. History provides no example of a successful free republic in an extensive country. The Roman Empire was originally a free republic, but as It’s empire grew larger and more powerful, it slowly became corrupt and one of the greatest tyrannical powers in the Ancient world. Even nature goes against the idea of an extensive free republic. In a free government, the assent of the people to the laws by which they are governed is necessary.
This assent is expressed by representatives appointed by them who share the same interests and sentiments. In a large extensive country, such as America, true representation of the entire people is quite impossible. There will never be a representative who possesses an equal mind with the people and can express their interests and concerns properly. The interests of the people in a large country are so varied and different that there will be a constant clash of opinions between State representatives.
A standing army will be necessary for the enforcing of any law, which will only lead to the privation of liberty and tyranny. The legislature will not be able to address all the various concerns and wants of the different parts of the country. Furthermore, an abuse of power will be inevitable in a large country, because of the great magnitude of it; and it will be nigh impossible to bring these abusers to justice or to prevent it.
The best solution to the problem, they conclude, is that the United States should remain a confederate government, each State governed by the State legislature, except when certain national concerns arise; instead of one great republic, governed by one legislature under the direction of the executive and judicial branches. If the Constitution will ultimately lead to a consolidation of the States, it should not be adopted for the good of the country.
In the essays ‘Federalist 39’ and ‘Federalist 10’ the Federalist’s refute the objections made in ‘Brutus I.’ A Republic, according to their definition, is “a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior” (Federalists and Antifederalists pg. 21). The first principle from this definition, that it must derive its powers from the people and not a favored class, is absolutely essential to a republican form of government, otherwise, tyrannical rulers would rise up and take the name of republican for their own governments. The second principle from the definition, that those in office are appointed directly or indirectly from the people, is only sufficient.
The countries that call themselves republics today, such as England, Holland, and Venice, do not actually possess the essential principle of a republican form of government, that their powers must be derived directly or indirectly from the people, and therefore, the term cannot be applied to them. If the Constitution is shown to stray from these principles, it must not be adopted. On examining the Constitution, the proposed government, however, does in fact conform to this definition. It will derive its powers both directly and indirectly from the people: the House of Representatives directly, the Senate indirectly, the President indirectly, and the Judges indirectly.
Each office will be allotted a certain duration: each member of the House of Representatives holding the office for two years, each member of the Senate holding the office for six years, each President holding his office for four years, though he is impeachable at any time during his term, and each Judge’s position determined by good behavior. Furthermore, it allows no titles of nobility.
The Constitution preserves both the federal form, which regards the union as a confederacy of States, and the national form, which regards the union as a consolidation of States, while retaining the republican form. The proposed government will be neither entirely national, nor entirely federal, but a combination of both. Examining its foundation, it is federal, not national, since it is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the American people through their particular State. Examining its sources of power and their extent, it seems to have as many federal features as national features; the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President all deriving their powers either directly from the people or indirectly through the States. Examining the authority by which the amendments are made, it also has as many federal features as national features.
One of the greatest threats to newly born countries, is the danger of factions. The Federalists define a faction as, “a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by a common impulse of passion, or of interest, which is adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the interests of the community. There are two methods of curing factions: directly removing its causes or controlling its effects. The first remedy is impossible, since factions come from the very nature of man, and to remove it would mean to remove the very liberty that is essential all men’s existence. The other option, also, is not possible, since every man is fallible subject to different opinions and interests, and man’s nature cannot be changed.
Therefore, factions can never fully be exterminated; but the only remedy is to control their effects as efficiently as possible. An extensive Republic is the only form of government that can truly provide a cure for factions. The majority will always be able to outvote a minority faction; and in the case of a majority faction, the size of the country and the varied interests of the people throughout it will decrease the chances of a majority faction ever seizing control. Therefore, in response to the Antifederalist’s objection that a large scale republic will not be practical or feasible, the extent and structure of the republic proposed in the Constitution is, actually, the very thing that will provide the United States of America protection from one of government’s greatest evils.
In conclusion, from a detailed examination of the arguments from both the the Antifederalist’s and Federalist’s sides, it is clear that the Constitution is both feasible and practical. The reason the United States of America has succeeded for generations, is the ingenuity of the design of its government. The Founding Fathers were very wise men in the science of government. They were able to look around them and through the pages of history at all the forms of governments that had ever been tried or were still in practice, and determine what was best for America. Their decision has brought about the enduring happiness of an entire nation and its people for countless. A country with a good government is very blessed.
