Introduction
The members of the US Constitutional Convention debated long and hard about the form that the nation’s executive should take. There was little enthusiasm for a system that might replace George III with a home-grown executive that might prove equally threatening, but there were concerns that the new nation should have an executive leadership capable of acting decisively in the nation’s interest when necessary. Although disestablishment occurred overtime on a state-by-state basis, the debates concerning law and religion at the 1787 federal constitutional convention outline the ideological base for separating church and state. These debates fit nicely into the growing ideological realization that all private actions required protection from the threats posed by the public sector.
Analysis
The two major groups at the Constitutional Convention were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists genuinely believed that a strong national government threatened individual freedoms. The Federalists thought the country would fail and disintegrate if the national government did not have sufficient power to cope with its many problems. During the process of ratification of the Constitution, Federalists and Anti-Federalists conflicted over several issues.
Federalists displayed an understandable tendency to reflect their advocacy of a strong national government. The Anti-Federalists were more in line with their uncompromisingly republican cause. The debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists consisted in two common norms: on one hand, that the projected new Constitution provided the federal government with practically overall legal power over the army and, on the other hand, that the federal government must not have any right at all to ban the citizenry from bearing arms. The difference between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was only in a slight question of whether a carrying weapons population could effectively pledge the protection of liberty.
The debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists is a debate between a state form and the federation. Their views cannot be reconciled as they employ completely different political ontologies: security and individualism on the federalist side contra political freedom and an understanding of the necessity of renewal on the Anti-Federalists side. Where the founding dread of the Federalists was a failure, the original fear of the Anti-Federalists was a loss.
The constitutional recourse of the Anti-Federalists is conceived of more as a renewal than a remedy. Anti-Federalist constitutionalism is a culmination of history, not a new beginning of time. The Federalists, in their turn, made no secret of their British sympathies. They approached the problems from the assumption that the United States belonged to a civil society of North Atlantic nations. Emphasizing the role of governments and institutions in securing property and liberty, this perspective stressed national cohesion as the foundation of international legitimacy.
The Federalists tried to play by European rules, which ensured their share of contempt abroad and was criticized at home. A competing Anti-Federalist vision turned away from the traditional European statecraft. According to their laws, people in their natural simplicity were free, happy, and not predisposed to kill or rob each other. They did not need monarchs or coercive governments to enjoy the safety and pursue property. The Anti-Federalist approach became the prevailing language of American foreign relations and an important element of American national identity.
There were prominent individuals in both camps. The federalists were rich, knowledgeable, and united by the idea of an authoritative, unified government. Their frontrunners were typically significant men such as Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Jay, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton. They were advocates for a logical, competent government that could guard their economic standing. Anti-Federalists were mostly ranchers, mortgagors, and other minor class individuals who were devoted to their state administration, which involved Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry.
One of the primary objections the Anti-Federalists had to the Constitution was the deficiency of a Bill of Rights, which would have given elementary rights to the community. They also were afraid of the control that would be given to a rather dominant government. George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine were the select few of the Anti-Federalist party. Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution because he thought it violated the Declaration of Independence.
Conclusion
The debates of Federalists and Anti-Federalists certainly are most apparent nowadays in the United States’ two-party structure. Conventionally, the Federalists supported solid central management while the Anti-Federalists contended for more state civil liberties. These Anti-Federalists were concerned that the Federalists would build a sturdy dominant government and get away with giving all of the authority to the state.
They thought that the Federalist organization would have too much control over the people. Paradoxically, these two groups both detested political parties but in due course, Federalists turned into the Democrats and Anti-Federalist turned into the Republicans. At the moment, these two parties still do not agree on many issues, and one of them is healthcare. The Democrats sought a government that decrees the healthcare package, but the Republicans alleged that this plan would give the federal government excessive authority. The Republicans claimed that it should up to every separate state to regulate whether or not there should be a delegated healthcare plan. At long last, the Democrats’ proposal validity on the healthcare is still up for dispute.
Bibliography
Broadwater, Jeff. James Madison: A Son of Virginia and a Founder of the Nation. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2016.
Cornell, Saul. “Constitutional Meaning and Semantic Instability: Federalists and Anti- Federalists on the Nature of Constitutional Language.” American Journal of Legal History 56, no. 1 (March 29, 2016): 21-28. Web.
Dorfman, Ben. Ideas in History: Journal of the Nordic Society for the History of Ideas. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen, 2012.
Gray, Edward G., and Jane Kamensky. The Oxford Handbook of the American Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Gunn, T. Jeremy, and John Witte. No Establishment of Religion: America’s Original Contribution to Religious Liberty. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Hill, Kenneth L. An Essential Guide to American Politics and the American Political System. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2012.
Lamb, Pamela K. 5 Steps to a 5 AP US Government and Politics. Columbus, OH: Mcgraw-Hill, 2011.
McKeever, Robert J., and Philip Davies. A Brief Introduction to US Politics. Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2014.
Mucke, Moritz. Antiquity in “The Federalist Papers” Munich: GRIN Verlag, 2014.
O’Toole, G. J. A. Honorable Treachery: A History of U.S. Intelligence, Espionage, and Covert Action from the American Revolution to the CIA. New York, NY: Grove/Atlantic, 2014.
Tulis, Jeffrey, and Stephen Macedo. The Limits of Constitutional Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010.