Federalists vs. Anti-Federalist: The Constitutional Debate The road to accepting the Constitution of the United States was neither easy nor predetermined. In fact during and after its drafting a wide-ranging debate was held between those who supported the Constitution. The Federalists, and those who were against it, the Anti-Federalists. The basis of this debate regarded the kind of government the Constitution was proposing, a centralized republic. Included in the debate over a centralized government were issues concerning the affect the Constitution would have on state power. The power of the different branches of government that the Constitution would create. And the issue of a standing army. One of the most important concerns of the Anti-Federalists was that the new form of government would strip the states of their own power.
The Anti-Federalists feared that by combining the previously independent states under one government that, “… the states, once sovereign, would retain but a shadow of their former power…”(Main 120). The Anti-Federalist claimed that if the sovereignty of the states was to be maintained. Then the states must be granted the vital powers of government and the power of Congress limited. However, they claimed that this was not so under the Constitution. The Constitution gave Congress unlimited power and did not explicitly detail any control that the states would be able to exercise over the Federal government. The Anti-Federalists stated that since both the state and Federal government would frequently legislate on the same matters, if a conflict among their decisions arose the Federal government would win out because of its connection to the Supreme Court (Main 124).
They feared that “the result of (this connection) might be eventual abolition of the state governments” (Main 124). In Federalist Paper No. 46, James Madison addresses these concerns about the well being of the state governments under the Constitution. Madison argues that the interests of the states will not be lost in Congress, because the loyalty of the legislator will be first to the people of his district and then secondly to the benefit of the whole country. Madison says that the “members of the Federal Legislature will be likely to attach themselves too much to local objects”(Madison 239).
Madison tried to alleviate the concerns of the Anti-Federalist concerning what type of recourse the states would have against Federal legislation by saying that the states would have powerful means of opposition to any unfavorable or unwarranted legislation. The powerful means of opposition Madison talks about is the displeasure of the people, whom Madison believes to be the fountain from which the Federal government draws its power. The second major concern of the Anti-Federalists was the power of Congress. It worried the Anti-Federalists a great deal that the Constitution would grant Congress the power to tax in “necessary and proper” circumstances (Main 122).
Not only could Congress pass new taxes without the consent of the people or state governments, the Anti-Federalist also felt that the Congress would have control over the judiciary branch. If Congress had influence over the judicial system, what recourse would the state have against unfair legislation? The executive’s ability to veto also displeased the Anti-Federalist, for they feared that such power was too reminiscent of a monarchy.
The Anti-Federalists debated with the Federalists about the duration of the terms that Congressmen would have. They believed that the elections should be held annually, as to keep the legislators in touch with their constituents. The Constitution, instead, called for House representatives to be elected every two years and for Senators to have a term of six years. The Federalist answer to these concerns was a system of checks and balances. Whereas the Anti-Federalists saw all branches of government working in accordance with each other, the Federalists believed that the different branches of government would be able to check the power of each other. In Federalist Paper No. 51, Madison details why he thinks the separation of power among three branches will create checks and balances among those branches. Madison states that “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition” (Madison 262).
Madison believed that by dividing the power of the people between two distinct governments and then subdividing this power among distinct and separate departments, that a high level of security would be able to be maintained for the rights of the people (Madison 264). The Anti-Federalists addressed the issue of a standing army under the control of the Federal government, they feared that Congress’ control over both taxes and a standing army could result in an oppression of the people. This also factored into the debate over state power, because it was obvious that the state militias would be no match for the federal army, if it decided to encroach into the state. Anti-Federalist John Smilie declared that, “… In a free Government there never will be Need of standing Armies, for it depends on the Confidence of the People. If it does not so depend, it is not free…” (Main 147).
Madison contradicts the arguments of the Anti-Federalist concerning this issue in Federalist Paper No. 46. He points out two reasons that the states need not worry about a standing army. His first argument is that it would be incredibly unlikely that the people would consistently elect traitors that would, “…pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment…”(Madison 241). Secondly, Madison points out that Americans are armed and that the states control of militias will, “…form a barrier against the enterprizes of ambition…”(Madison 242). Again in this argument Madison goes back to his belief that the Federal government is unlikely to become oppressive because the people grant its power. Both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists believed strongly in their convictions about the Constitution. However, in the end, it was the Federalists who won, and the Constitution was ratified.
Looking back in hindsight, it is easy to see that both groups were right. The Constitution created a government that has, for the most part, protected the rights and freedom of its people, but there have also been moments in American history where the fears of the Anti-Federalists were realized and corruption was found in the government. Admiration is felt for both of these groups, because their debates over that fledgling government gave rise to a strong Constitution and a strong representative republic.
