NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
When comparing and contrasting Anti-Federalist views on the ratification of the United States Constitution with those of the Federalists, one must also consider the inherent relationship that represents their respective views upon principles, problems and solutions, ultimately surmising which side best reflects or departs from the original principles set forth for the Declaration. It can be argued that the two sides are quite contrary in their individual perceptions, which each faction believing that its views are of primary integrity. The debate raged on between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists as to what, if any, ratification should be implemented with regard to the Constitution. This period of discord lasted from the moment the first draft was written in 1787 until such ratification was imposed in 1789. Without question, this was a time of intense debate between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists. Scores of papers were composed from both sides attesting to the fact that proposed ratification should either take place or should not, depending upon which group one supported.
As a collective work, each side cited significant points that clearly illustrated their agendas. The Federalists, however, seem to have struck a chord more influential in the minds of the citizens. This not only because their attempts to rally a political consensus on their behalf seemed to have been a step ahead as well as more organized, but possibly more so because the Anti-Federalists failed to substantially prove that small republics were better able to sustain individual liberties than were large republics. The Anti-Federalists were defiantly opposed to any ratification of the Constitution.
Supporting this view were several different authors who composed stringent papers that reflected the Anti-Federalist belief; however, because of the intensity with which these papers were written, many of the writers opted to employ pseudonyms. Within these works was found the reasoning behind why the Anti-Federalists were against ratifying the Constitution, which focused primarily upon the dangers of tyranny and how it would further and ultimately weaken the very essence of the Constitution. It was argued that the Constitution was not well equipped to deal with a potential monarchy to which England was so accustomed. Even though it was established that the Bill of Rights was solid enough to correct some of those weaknesses, there still existed enough subsequent considerations to cause the Anti-Federalists to continue opposing any Constitutional ratification. The Federalists, on the other hand, supported the ratification. Instrumental to the cause were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, who were responsible for composing the collection of writings that came to be known as The Federalist Papers.
Basing their argument on the fact that the United States Constitution was fundamentally created as a reflection of human attributes, the men pointed to such examples as separation of powers and other applicable precautions against the concept of totalitarianism. They contended that any such actions only served to focus upon the decidedly pessimistic side of humanity. Madison's vocal condemnation of such consideration asked if government was not the most significant of all human reflection, stating that if humanity were comprised of angels, there would exist no need for any governmental control whatsoever. His point, as well as the point of other Federalists who supported ratification, addressed the inherent need for mans activities to remain under some semblance of control, no matter if it meant the leaders or the common people. They declared that the Constitution was constructed so as to maintain a system of checks and balances in order to ward off potential tyranny about which the Anti-Federalists were so concerned. Madison, Hamilton and Jay made serious attempts to demonstrate how ratification was a necessary evil in establishing the best Constitutional representation possible.
While addressing this issue of leadership, Madison stated that educated and compassionate compatriots would not always occupy the top position. This fact, in and of itself, was reason enough for the Constitution to address such issues by limiting potential harm done by inadequate or corrupt leaders. Hamilton effectively summed up the Federalist viewpoint when he remarked that the countrys laws cannot be so numerous as to confuse or befuddle the populace. If they are so disorderly as to be misunderstood or if they represent various and sundry modifications without merit, then no person of decent intelligence would ever be able to interpret them. Two advantages of the proposed union included prevention of domestic faction and the boost of affairs of economics and inter commerce.
Where faction was proposed to induce formation of classes, and spark domestic feuds, union would allow for balance of power and eliminate the labeled inevitable uprising of a single state or power. The lack of power to regulate commerce was becoming detrimental to the states. The states were erecting tariff barriers against one another, and making their own trade and shipping regulations. The provision of a common defense was a major issue of debate as well.
The existing procedure in raising an army proved to be greatly inefficient, using a system of quotas and requisitions on states in regard to men and money that wasa system of imbecility in the union, and of inequality and injustice among the members. The states nearest the area of combat were forced to raise troops for mere survival. Also, the necessity remained of building and equipping a navy, as well as a body to direct their actions and provide for their support. Under the Articles of the Confederation, this safeguard was nonexistent. Something had to be done or the Confederacy would not be able to withstand foreign powers for long.
The fear held by Anti-Federalists of the oppression that could be caused by a standing army was addressed by Hamilton, who clearly expressed that the power of raising military forces would be lodged in the legislature, not the executive, so that the legislators periodically elected by the people themselves (the representatives), would provide adequate control, and thus a standing army could not be formed without the consent of the people. Along with the fear of the formation of a standing army, the Anti-Federalists were concerned about the power of taxation that the central government would have (and that the military would be used to collect them). They feared that outrageous taxes would be forced upon the countrys inhabitants for everything from imports to land and goods at their sovereign pleasure. The Federalists saw the need for the institution of the power to tax by the national government. Because the government under the Articles of the Confederation was quite inefficient in producing revenues necessary to carry out its purposes, due to the system of making quotas and requisitions upon the thirteen states, and due to the fact that external taxes such as customs duties were not adequate revenues, they saw it necessary for the national government to have the power to tax.
Hamilton argued that the states unified, being closer to the people, would be more likely to levy unruly taxing measures than would the national government. In fact, as a unified nation, there would be free trade among the states, which would stimulate the national economy. The power to levy taxes would be in the hands of the peoples representatives, who (theoretically) could be trusted to act with care on behalf of the peoples wishes, and if this was not so, then new representatives could be elected. The Anti-Federalists raised uproar over the necessary and proper clause, which empowered the government to make all laws deemed necessary and proper; and the supreme law of the land clause, which declared that all laws passed and all treaties signed by the government were to be the supreme law of the land; any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. They believed these clauses would allow the local governments to be destroyed and individual liberties to be eliminated. The Federalists, namely Hamilton, dismissed these views as misrepresentation.
These backers were firm believers in the institution of concurrent jurisdiction, in which the national government would have altogether unlimited means in which to levy necessary taxes, while the states retained their ability to tax as well. Hamilton denounced the proposition of the national government raising revenue only through customs duties on foreign imports and exports. He pointed out that these duties would have to be raised prodigiously high, encouraging smuggling, bringing higher prices on essentials, and yielding a market monopoly for domestic manufacturers. The Anti-Federalists saw many flaws in the formation of a union, chiefly in specific respect to the proposed Constitution. Concerning the legislative bodies, the elimination of annual Congressional elections was a danger in that the term for which Congressmen served was too long to preserve a due dependence and accountability for their constituents. Also, it was proposed that the number of representatives (one for every 30, 000 inhabitants) was too few to adequately deal with the needs, wants, concerns, and opinions of the people as well as it was too few to prevent corruption.
As far as the Senate was concerned, the Anti-Federalists held grudgingly the opinion that the senate... is constituted on the most unequal principles, where as each state, no matter how large, has equal representation in this body. Beside this, there lies an opportunity for the senate to be an instrumental key in the uprising of the feared despotism, as the six-year position of which one can serve an unlimited number of terms could lead to permanency. As Centinel of the Anti-Federalist arguments conceded, of all possible evils, that of despotism is the worst and the most to be dreaded.
The argument follows that the possibility of the President facilitating the uprising of a perpetuation of corruption within the senate and construction of an aristocracy is too great and will ultimately lead to the evolution of a government which can be described as the furthest thing from balanced. The Federalists sought out primarily to unite the states under this Constitution, knowing that provision must be made for amendment to the document (provision for which would be much more easily construed once the Constitution was in effect, as then it would take only a majority concensus as opposed to the agreement of each of the thirteen parties. In fact, Madison carried out his promise to make the provisions for amendment and was key in drafting the Bill of Rights. The Federalists backed the instituted two-year term for representatives because one year would not allow ample time for them to learn and effectively perform duties before it was time to worry about re-election. In a country such as England where the institution of government had long-ago been established and the representative body maintained a static position from year to year, an annual election may have been sufficient; however, in the creation of a new union and entire new government, bi-annual election would hardly allow for abuse of power. The concern of the opposition that a beginning House of sixty-five would be too few to adequately manage public interests was answered with the estimation that with population growth, there would probably be two-hundred reps.
in twenty-five years, and four hundred reps. in fifty years. In answer to the concern that the House would be too small to be sufficiently respondent to the interests of its constituents, the Federalists maintained that more focus should be on the issues of commerce, taxation, defense, etc. , and they believed that one representative per 30, 000 would be both a safe and competent guardian of the interests... confided to it. The Senate, as proposed in the Constitution would be under rotation so that one-third is up for election every two years, allowing for a majority of experience, and enabling stability and continuity. The arrangement of the House and Senate as it were, would be effective in impeding passage of bad legislation, as a law must be concluded on by the people (the House) and then a state majority (the Senate).
The drafters of the Constitution found the utmost difficulty in arranging the sections dealing with the executive branch. The opposition held concern of despotic value. Their utter aversion to monarchy had them agitatedly eyeing every aspect of this proposed position. Hamilton held with conviction his belief in the necessity of an energetic executive. The President would be up for election every four years, and would be eligible for impeachment, and thus the danger of a monarchial position would not be imminent. The proposed structure of the judiciary was not as controversial as other elements of the Constitution.
Balancing the governmental powers, the judiciary was to remain truly distinct from both the legislative and executive branches of the government, and it was to act as a check on both. The federal courts would have jurisdiction and authority to overrule state laws that were contrary to the Constitution, to facilitate interpretation of national laws, and in regard to foreign citizens. Also, the federal courts would have jurisdiction in conflicts between the states. The Anti-Federalists held objection to the lack of provision for trial-by-jury. Hamilton argued that this did not mean that the right was entirely abolished, and pointed out that the laws and constitutions of the various states did not uphold a uniform standard in regard to this issue. Regarding the issue of the Courts ability to invalidate acts of Congress, much debate has arisen over the years, and the issue remains a topic of heated argument.
It was obvious to all parties that the constitution was not, for all intents and purposes, perfect. However, the Federalists argued that it should be accepted as it was without prior modification, as provision had been made for amending it later. Under the circumstances, they contended, it was the best plan set forth thus far. The Anti-Federalists did not seem to be able to answer the arguments of the Federalists such that the new plan would be refuted, and thus since a majority was not willing to discard the the strengths of the proposed constitution in favor of the Articles in place, the document was ratified and is held in place today.
Those arguments held with strongest conviction against the proposition regarding the inclusion of the basic liberties (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly; the right to bear arms, etc. ) were answered quickly as the first ten amendments, or Bill of Rights, was appended to the Constitution shortly after its ratification. The Anti-Federalists held many valuable and impact ful arguments in opposition to the formation of the union under the new constitution. However, the wave of momentum that carried the proposition was far too strong for this opposition to contend with. They simply could not prove undoubtedly that the current system held emphasizing the prominence of the small state republics was superior to the large republic of the union described in the newly proposed constitution.
This failure may have caused the evolution of one of the greatest democratic republics the world has ever seen.
Free research essays on topics related to: anti federalists, united states constitution, law of the land, customs duties, bill of rights
Research essay sample on United States Constitution Bill Of Rights
