Federalists Vs AntiFederalists And Their Common Arguments

Federalists Vs. Anti-Federalists, And Their Common Arguments Essay, Research Paper

Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists, and Their Common Arguments

The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has there own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry’s “Virginia Should Reject the Constitution,” Richard Henry Lee’s “The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy,” James Madison’s “Federalist Paper No. 10,” and “The Letters to Brutus.” In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.

Patrick Henry makes his views very clear in his Letter. He is obviously against ratifying the Constitution. His main argument’s consists of the sovereignty of the states, the system of checks and balances and the senate, the leaning towards a monarchy, and absolute power. Henry thinks that the uniting of all the states under one government would take away the sovereignty of the states. He states that, “Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished” (Henry in Unger, p. 115). Another argument that Henry makes is about the system of checks and balances. He thinks that this system would never really be followed. The senate, he says, is not structured well enough to protect the rights of the people. One of his main points is the leaning towards a monarchy. He describes that it would be very easy for the President to become a king. Henry seems to also contradict himself on this point when he says that he would rather have a king and lords than a chief who controls the army. Henry’s final point is about the creation of an absolute ruler. Like he says about the monarchy, it would be easy for this to happen. If the President has control of the army, it would be easy to declare himself an absolute leader.

Richard Henry Lee is another Anti-Federalist who displays his views throughout his article. Lee discusses some arguments, but the main point of his article is about how the Constitution came to be and the problems associated with it. He says “by making tender, suspension, and paper money laws, have given just cause of uneasiness to creditors. By these and other causes, several orders of men in the community have been prepared, by degrees, for a change in government” (Lee in Unger, p. 119). Lee believes that if these things had not occurred, the idea of a new government would have never been thought of. Another point that Lee makes is about the delegates that were chosen to go to the convention. He says that the intentional purpose of the convention was to amend the Confederation. There was no word about devising a new governmental plan, and because of this, states were very willing to attend the convention. Another problem with the convention was the appointment of the delegates and who actually attended the convention. Lee says that many men who could have made a difference at the convention did not attend and therefore the nation has suffered. He believes that many groups were not represented well at the convention, and that if more men had attended the outcome would have been very different.

The third document, “Letters to Brutus,” reflects many different views on why the Constitution should not be ratified. Like Henry this article discusses the fear of absolute power arising. Other arguments include the difficulty of one government controlling such a big and diverse nation, confidence in rulers, and standing armies. The main argument of the article is the difficulty of controlling a nation so big. Brutus uses the example of the Grecian republic and also the government of the Romans. He claims that they started out small and eventually expanded their empire, which led to their downfall. Also, in such a large country, people can not have the faith in their rulers as in a smaller government. The strength of a government depends on the support of its citizens. Another argument that goes hand in hand with the size of the Untied States, is the diversity of it. Each state had it’s own laws, and many of these laws are very conflicting with one another. Brutus quotes that, “In a republic of such vast extent as the United States, the legislature cannot attend to the various concerns and wants of its different parts” (Brutus, p. 99). Finally, Brutus discusses the effects of having a “standing army.” He says that if the United States has a “standing army” to enforce laws that it would create fear and eventually lead to an absolute power.

The article that display’s the Federalist’s point of view is James