Introduction
When the fight for freedom had been fought and won, the Americans were finally free from the control of Great Britain. This however came with a new necessity; a new system of governance. The need was informed by the experience of colonization with the biggest concern being wiping out tyrannical leadership. Prior to this, the different states were governed and interconnected with The Articles of Confederation. The articles of Confederation however gave no power to the central government. This autonomous nature of the different states was recipe for confusion and disunity.
It was this that made it a necessity to have a document geared towards strengthening central government without compromising the freedom and safety of the states. This led to the drafting of the constitution. This process brought a sharp division of the Americans into two broad categories; those who were for the constitution and those who were opposed to the constitution. The ones supporting the document were referred to as federalist while those who opposed the document were referred to as ant federalist. The federalist believed the document was good while the ant federalists believed the document would not safeguard the interests of the states and of the people therein.
Main body
There is one thing that the two groups agreed on. The two different groups agreed on the fact that power was being abused. All of them had experienced the war and saw how Britain had violated their freedom. They were both conscious of the fact that there was looming threat for misuse of power unless a solution was realized. The federalists view was that the only sure way to have a lasting solution is through having the new constitution ratified. A constitution that would empower the central government to make it a watchdog for the other states would solve the situation. Wilson argued that it would not be in the best interests of the public to allow power to be in the hands of the legislature unless it was first put down in a legal binding document. This, he said, was the surest way to guard against the abuse of power.
The anti-federalists did not subscribe to this school of thought.While they had many concerns that they consistently raised; the major concern for the anti-federalists was the absolute power that had been vested in the central government as proposed in the new constitution. It is this point of view that fueled most subsequent debates before the ratification of the document. They held the view that the giving of power to the congress was dangerous as it would live the states as toothless dogs. Their fear was that the citizens would not be fairly represented by their own government. This was especially so because of the vastness of the land of America. The main idea of having one representative per state did not go well with the anti-federalists. They thought that one man is not sufficient to voice the opinions of hundreds of thousands of other people (Storing and Murray, 64). They believed that meaningful freedom can only be in a scenario where there are few people who can effectively project their voices. They believed that a too powerful central government would have policies that would not be friendly for the common man. For instance, they raised concerns about the economic security of farmers. They were concerned that the federal government would excessively impose taxes on the farmers which would leave them impoverished.
The anti-federalists believed that by forming a new system of governance, there would be the obvious need to raise money for the central government. This would mean imposing state taxes on the people. They also believed that imposing a state tax would be unfair. This was because different states had different needs and resources. It was a major decision which could have been able to destroy a state. The destruction could have either been economically or otherwise. They warned people to expect heavy taxation as a means that the new government would use to raise money.
All of this stemmed from the fear of the thought of giving absolute power to a central government. They didn’t want a federal government that would override the state government. They believed that the states should be left as autonomous as is practically possible. The anti-federalists were afraid that the government would meddle in the affairs of the different states and the dispensation would create a precipice for tyrannical leadership as the previous colonial masters.
On the other hand, Madison who was a prominent voice in the federalist papers disagreed on this. He explained that in fact, tyranny was made possible by having smaller units of governance. This was because, smaller groups of people were more exposed to bigger influence and manipulation by the leaders as opposed to larger populations. He observed that as the population increased, the window of manipulation, bribery and undue influence grew smaller and smaller.
Furthermore, Madison argued that a larger republic meant that there would be a larger pool of representatives from which the best would be selected to be their leaders. This would not only ensure that there would be a very high quality form of governance but it also ensured that the people had a variety of leaders to choose from. According to the federalist arguments, this was not possible for a small system of governance since there would be fewer people to select from which in its entirety would result in an unfair competition.
On absolute power being given to central government, the federalists looked at the issue differently but objectively. Madison pointed out that If you want to govern people, then the government that is governing the people must be made more powerful than the people it is governing in order to govern them effectively. This however was to be done in a way that would not compromise the freedom of the same people it was governing. In an attempt to explain this further, he wrote in Federalist 39 that the proposed document was both composite and federal thus forming a hybrid system.
Madison explained that the government would be composite in the sense that there were certain powers that impinged directly on the people. This mainly included the taxation power and election of House of Representatives. On the other hand the document could be seen as federal in the sense that the different states would be in effect smaller parts of the bigger government. This meant that in fact, the constitution would enhance efficiency of the states while strengthening the wider nation at large.
While this explanation seemed to have some weight, it resulted into another even more critical question; the question of basic human rights. The anti-federalists were afraid that the powerful government would infringe on the basic and fundamental human rights of the people. This fear of possible infringement of basic human rights by the government is what resulted in the debate about the bill of rights. The anti-federalists argued that it was important tot have a way of protecting the common men from interference by the government. A debate ensued back at the convention during the drafting process. Pertinent issues were raised. An example is the third amendment which touched on the right to privacy. It was crafted to ensure that the people’s freedom and right to privacy was not infringed upon by the army (Chin). The idea of the anti-federalist team was to have a form of protection for the people to ensure that the central government did not use its power to infringe on the rights of the common man.
Then there was the other concern raised by the anti-federalists. It was about the length or duration of time a constitutional office holder should serve. The anti-federalists were, for instance, not pleased with the idea of senators serving six year terms as had been proposed in the document. They came up with very radical suggestions including suggesting that a senator’s term should last a period of one year. They further suggested that no person was to be allowed to serve as a senator for more than five years. The federalist didn’t agree with this idea arguing that it would result in creating a senate that is not deliberative enough as they would be afraid of doing against the will of the electorate (Madison, 131).
Another issue that was a hot potato was the issue of foreign influence. The anti-federalists believed that having a central government exposed the wider population to interference from other countries. One of the authors admonished the people that the new constitution will create a national government, which will not have the tentacles needed to abate foreign influence. This he argued would be dangerous for national security and it could even be a causative agent for civil strife and civil war. This same school of thought was propagated by one Philathropos, in a paper he entitled, “Adoption of the Constitution will lead to civil war”. The anti-federalists also raised concerns about the economic security of farmers.
They were concerned that the federal government would excessively impose taxes on the farmers which would leave them impoverished. One of the articles written actually warned people to expect heavy taxation as a means that the new government would use to raise money. The federalists however thought taxation was just one of the ways to raise revenue. They saw the constitution as an opportunity for growth for the common man because of the infrastructure that will be created by the central government. They believed that the stability of the country would greatly influence rapid growth of the country and this would have the trickle down effect to the common man in the street.
On the contrary, the anti-federalists thought exactly the opposite would happen. They agreed that there would be very good opportunities for growth but they were skeptical that it would be beneficial for the citizens of the great. To them, centralization meant that that at the center will benefit from the centralized resources at the expense of those that are at the bottom, they saw in the enlarged power of the government only opportunity and occasion of abuse of the same powers.
Conclusion
The debates by the federalists and the anti-federalists on the new constitution can actually be said to have been a good debate since it resulted into the making of constitution that is considered in many circles as the best in the world. While the different groups were seldom in agreement, the important fact to consider is that both the federalists and the anti-federalists agreed that there needs to be a system to ensure that the problem of tyranny was put in check in a satisfactory manner. The only difference is that the two categories had two different opinions towards this.
Works Cited
Chin, Stern. Oracle Think Quest. 1997. Web.
Madison, John. From Parchment to Power. New York: America Enterprise Institute, 1997.
Storing, Henry and Murray, Dickson. What The Anti-Federalist Were For. University of Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1981.
Wilson, Joseph. The founders constitution: Federal Vs Consolidated Government. 1787. Web.