Federalist Litigation
Introduction
Following the gaining of Independence of the thirteen American colonies from Britain in 1776, the union needed to form a national government. The union was formed by a group of largely different state governments. Two major opposing parties existed during the American Revolution – Federalists and the Anti-federalists. The term “federal” referred to those in support of the colonial union as well as the government formed basis on the Articles of Confederation. Those in opposition was known as the “anti-federalists”. The divergent perspectives of conflict between the federalists on the one hand and the anti-federalists on the other shaped much of the United States’ political debate and policy. The federalists were led by Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, while the anti-federalists were under the leadership of Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson.
The Main Arguments
The Constitution ratification debate was the main divisive issue for the American public at the time. The Federalists – the proponents of the Constitution – held that it was impossible to sustain a popular government without ratification (Siemers 2). On the contrary, the Anti-federalists argued that the document posed a threat to popular rule. The Anti-federalists pointed to the dangerous elitism they held existed in the Constitution, portraying the Federalists as privileged complex minority geared at tyrannizing the people after ratifying their national powerful government. They based their argument on the fact that the Constitution was devoid of a Bill of Rights (Olson 110).
On the contrary, the Federalists believed the basic rights were secure considering that most state constitutions already had solid guarantees of these rights (Siemers 3). The Federalists further argued that the ratification was necessary to save American from political and economic crisis (Berkin 192). They based their argument on the stagnation of the American economy, the prospective of revolt and social anarchy, together with the contempt shown for the young nations by other countries. The criterion for ratification was simple majority approval (9 states out 13) through a popularly elected convention, which ended in favor of the Federalists.
Conclusion
Generally, the Anti-federalists were opposed to the ratification of the Constitution arguing that it threatened republican ideals of representative government, was a medium of elite rule, and unconcerned with protection of people’s individual liberties. The Federalists, on the other hand, held the Constitution document was poised to preserve the republican principles of the American Revolution relatively better as compared to the Articles of Confederation.
References
Olson, Ron. Homework Helpers: From the Discovery of America Through the Civil War. Franklin Lakes, NJ: Career Press, 2006. Print.
Berkin, Carol. Making America: A History of the United States. Boston, Mass: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. Print.
Siemers, David J. Ratifying the Republic: Antifederalists and Federalists in Constitutional Time. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. Print.
