Topic of Discussion – the Federalist V. Antifederalist

Home , The Federalist Papers

Discussion 8-4 US History ~ Chapter 8 Topic Discussions E Lundberg Topic of Discussion – The Federalist v. Antifederalist

Related Topics Chapter Information ~ Ch 8; 3 sections; 294 pages The Articles of Confederation Confederation to Constitution (1776-1791) The Constitution of the United States Section 1 ~ The Confederation Era Pages 234-241 Federalism Section 2 ~ Creating the Constitution Pages 242-247 Section 3 ~ Ratification and the Bill of Rights Pages 248-256 The Virginia Plan The New Jersey Plan

Key Ideas Key Connections - 10 Major (Common) Themes 1. How cultures change through the blending of different ethnic groups. The Idea of a strong Central Government 2. Taking the land. 3. The individual versus the state. States Rights v. Federal Rights 4. The quest for equity - slavery and it’s end, women’s suffrage etc. 5. Sectionalism. Strong Central Government = progression or regression 6. Immigration and Americanization. 7. The change in social class. Political strategy to get the Constitution ratified 8. Technology developments and the environment. 9. Relations with other nations. The Balance of Power 10. Historiography, how we know things. Political Checks and Balances

Talking Points I Introduction

The creation of the Constitution entailed hours of debate and compromise, and even when it was completed, some delegates were unhappy with it. The task of fixing the ailing Confederate government was not complete yet; each state had to ratify, or approve, the Constitution. Basically, people divided into two groups, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Each of their viewpoints is worth examining, as they both have sound reasoning.

1. The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution. Basically, they argue that:

2. It gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments.

3. There was no bill of rights.

4. The national government could maintain an army in peacetime.

5. Congress, because of the `necessary and proper clause,' wielded too much power.

6. The executive branch held too much power.

Of these complaints, the lack of a bill of rights was the most effective. The American people had just fought a war to defend their rights, and they did not want a intimidating national government taking those rights away again. The lack of a bill of rights was the focus of the Anti-Federalist campaign against ratification.

Questions to Think About Supporting Materials Who would gain political power with the ratification of Ratification by Maier the Constitution? Federalists v. Antifederalist: Ratification by Bailyn What type of sacrifices would states have to make? The Debate on the Constitution by Amar How much was this going to cost? Where was the representation in the Constitution? Discussion 8-4 US History ~ Chapter 8 Topic Discussions E Lundberg Topic of Discussion – The Federalist v. Antifederalist

Talking Points The Federalists, on the other hand, had answers to all of the Anti-Federalist complaints. Among them:

1. The separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Each branch repre- sents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another.

2. A listing of rights can be a dangerous thing. If the national government were to protect specific listed rights, what would stop it from violating rights other than the listed ones? Since we can't list all the rights, the Federalists argued that it's better to list none at all.

Overall, the Federalists were more organized in their efforts. By June of 1788, the Constitution was close to ratification. Nine states had ratified it, and only one more (New Hampshire) was needed. To achieve this, the Federalists agreed that once Con- gress met, it would draft a bill of rights. Finally, New York and Virginia approved, and the Constitution was a reality. Interesting- ly, the Bill of Rights was not originally a part of the Constitution, and yet it has proved to be highly important to protecting the rights of the people.

II Concerns of the Federalists

1. The framers suspected that people might be afraid the Constitution would take too much power away from the states. To address this fear, the framers explained that the Constitution was based on federalism. Federalism is a system of government in which power is shared between the central (or federal) government and the states. Link- ing them- selves to the idea of federalism, the people who supported the Constitution took the name Federalists.

Talking Points 2. The Federalists promoted their views and answered their critics in a series of essays, known as The Federalist papers. Three well-known politicians wrote The Federalist papers—James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. These essays first appeared as letters in New York newspapers. Calling for ratification of the Constitution, The Federalist papers appealed both to reason and emotion.

III Concerns of the Antifederalists

1. The Antifederalists thought the Constitution took too much power away from the states and did not guarantee rights for the people. Some feared that a strong president might be declared king. Others feared the Senate might become a powerful ruling class. In either case, they thought, the liberties fiercely won during the Revolution might be lost.

2. Antifederalists received support from rural areas, where people feared a strong government that might add to their tax burden. Large states and those with strong economies, such as New York, which had greater freedom under the Articles of Con- federation, also were unsupportive of the Constitution at first.

IV Conflicting Viewpoints Brings Tension

1. Because of its size, wealth, and influence and because it was the first state to call a ratifying convention, Pennsyl- vania was the focus of national attention. The positions of the Federalists, those who supported the Constitution, and the anti-Federalists, those who opposed it, were printed and reprinted by scores of newspapers across the

Talking Points country. And passions in the state were most warm. When the Federalist-dominated Pennsylvania assembly lacked a quorum on September 29 to call a state ratifying convention, a Philadelphia mob, in order to provide the necessary numbers, dragged two anti-Federalist members from their lodgings through the streets to the State House where the bedraggled representatives were forced to stay while the assembly voted. It was a curious exam- ple of participatory democracy.

2. On October 5 anti-Federalist Samuel Bryan published the first of his "Sentinel" essays in Philadelphia's Independ- ent Gazetteer. Republished in newspapers in various states, the essays assailed the sweeping power of the central government, the usurpation of state sovereignty, and the absence of a bill of rights guaranteeing individual liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. "The United States are to be melted down," Bryan declared, into a despotic empire dominated by "well-born" aristocrats. Bryan was echoing the fear of many anti- Federalists that the new government would become one controlled by the wealthy established families and the culturally refined. The common working people, Bryan believed, were in danger of being subjugated to the will of an all-powerful authority remote and inaccessible to the people. It was this kind of authority, he believed, that Americans had fought a war against only a few years earlier.

3. The next day James Wilson, delivering a stirring defense of the Constitution to a large crowd gathered in the yard of the State House, praised the new government as the best "which has ever been offered to the world." The Scotsman's view prevailed. Led by Wilson, Federalists dominated in the Pennsylvania convention, carrying the vote

Talking Points on December 12 by a healthy 46 to 23.

4. The vote for ratification in Pennsylvania did not end the rancor and bitterness. Franklin declared that scurrilous articles in the press were giving the impression that Pennsylvania was "peopled by a set of the most unprincipled, wicked, rascally and quarrelsome scoundrels upon the face of the globe." And in Carlisle, on December 26, anti- Federalist rioters broke up a Federalist celebration and hung Wilson and the Federalist chief justice of Pennsylva- nia, Thomas McKean, in effigy; put the torch to a copy of the Constitution; and busted a few Federalist heads.

5. In New York the Constitution was under siege in the press by a series of essays signed "Cato." Mounting a counter- attack, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay enlisted help from Madison and, in late 1787, they published the first of a series of essays now known as the Federalist Papers. The 85 essays, most of which were penned by Hamilton himself, probed the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and the need for an energetic national government. Thomas Jefferson later called the Federalist Papers the "best commentary on the principles of government ever written."

6. Against this kind of Federalist leadership and determination, the opposition in most states was disorganized and generally inert. The leading spokesmen were largely state-centered men with regional and local interests and loy- alties. Madison wrote of the Massachusetts anti-Federalists, "There was not a single character capable of uniting their wills or directing their measures. . . . They had no plan whatever." The anti-Federalists attacked wildly on

Talking Points several fronts: the lack of a bill of rights, discrimination against southern states in navigation legislation, direct taxation, the loss of state sovereignty. Many charged that the Constitution represented the work of aristocratic politicians bent on protecting their own class interests. At the Massachusetts convention one delegate declared, "These lawyers, and men of learning and moneyed men, that . . . make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill . . . they will swallow up all us little folks like the great Leviathan; yes, just as the whale swallowed up Jonah!" Some newspaper articles, presumably written by anti-Federalists, resorted to fanciful predictions of the horrors that might emerge under the new Constitution pagans and deists could control the government; the use of Inqui- sition-like torture could be instituted as punishment for federal crimes; even the pope could be elected president.

7. One anti-Federalist argument gave opponents some genuine difficulty--the claim that the territory of the 13 states was too extensive for a representative government. In a republic embracing a large area, anti-Federalists argued, government would be impersonal, unrepresentative, dominated by men of wealth, and oppressive of the poor and working classes. Had not the illustrious Montesquieu himself ridiculed the notion that an extensive territory composed of varying climates and people, could be a single republican state? James Madison, always ready with the Federalist volley, turned the argument completely around and insisted that the vastness of the country would itself be a strong argument in favor of a republic. Claiming that a large republic would counterbalance various political interest groups vying for power, Madison wrote, "The smaller the society the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a

Talking Points majority be found of the same party and the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression." Extend the size of the republic, Madison argued, and the country would be less vulnerable to separate factions within it.

V Ratification of the Constitution

1. Leaders of the Philadelphia Convention had completed the Constitution for the United States of America, but many of the convention members had lingering doubts as to whether the states would approve it. According to the Articles of Confederations, unanimous approval was needed to ratify the Constitution, and convention leaders feared that this was unachievable.

2. The fears of the Philadelphia Convention’s members were well founded. Rhode Island so staunchly resisted the idea of a strong central government it earned the nickname “Rogue Island.” The diminutive state, fearful of being overwhelmed by a central authority, refused to send delegates to Philadelphia or participate in the development of the Constitution. Although Rhode Island was the state that most vehemently opposed ratification of the Consti- tution, other states, including New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia all expressed concern over a federal union.

3. Since the framers had already decided to discard the Articles of Confederation when drafting the Constitution, they no longer felt bound by its requirement of a unanimous vote for ratification. The delegates agreed that approval from only 9 of the 13 states would be adequate to ratify the United States Constitution.

Talking Points 4. Even with the lower ratification requirements, the framers knew the process would not be easy. In an effort to combat the fear of a large, powerful government, convention leaders decided to set up conventions within each state where the people would approve or reject the Constitution. The Philadelphia Convention members finalized the Constitution and submitted it to the states for ratification on September 28,1787.

5. The public, expecting a revised version of the Articles of Confederation, was shocked by this new document. The Philadelphia Convention had been a very private affair, and only the individuals inside the meeting room were aware of the drastic changes that were taking place. At times during the convention, the windows were boarded over to ensure the framers’ privacy. As a result, the public, assuming that the convention’s purpose was to revise the existing Articles of Confederation, was taken aback by the innovative Constitution.

6. Public opinion about the Constitution quickly became separated into two camps, the Federalists and the Antifed- eralists. Most Federalists were wealthy, well-educated, and unified by the desire for a powerful, centralized government. Their leaders were usually influential men such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. They were proponents of an orderly, efficient government that could protect their economic status. The Federalists were well organized and in many states they often controlled the elections of ratifying conventions with their power and influence.

7. Their opponents, the Antifederalists, were generally farmers, debtors, and other lower class people who were loyal to their state governments. Antifederalist leaders, including Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, typically en-

Talking Points joyed more wealth and power than the people they led. Henry was notorious for fighting for individual liberties, and one of the primary objections the Antifederalists had to the Constitution was the lack of a Bill of Rights, which would have afforded basic liberties to the public. They also feared the powers that would be assigned to a large central government, especially powers of taxation. Many Antifederalists believed a republican government could not rule a nation as large as America, since previously republics had only been successful in small regions like Swit- zerland and the Netherlands.

8. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay stepped forward with a series of essays designed to alleviate the Antifederalists’ fears. These essays came to be known as the Federalists Papers, and they were the most influential political writings of the time. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay argued that limitations on governmental power were built into the Constitution with a series of checks and balances. In these essays they also explained the need for centralized government so the United States could earn the respect of other countries.

9. With the assistance of the Federalist Papers, the Federalists were able to break down resistance and gain enough support to ratify the Constitution. Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey became the first states to ratify, with all three taking action in December of 1787. Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, and South Carolina all ratified between January and May of 1788. The pivotal vote came in June of 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify, meeting the criteria required to adopt the Constitution.

Talking Points 10. With this vote, the Constitution went into effect, and the Continental Congress respectfully bowed out. The City of New York was selected as the location for the new Congress, and March 4, 1789, was chosen as the date the new Congress would initially convene.

11. However, even with the ratification of the Constitution, the framers understood that all 13 states needed to ac- cept the laws and boundaries of the Constitution. The Federalists continued to lobby and eventually earned the ratification of Virginia and New York in the summer of 1788. However, North Carolina, and Rhode Island held out until the new Congress had begun its work and had fulfilled its promise to draft a Bill of Rights. North Carolina ratified on November 21, 1789, and Rhode Island finally yielded—albeit by the closest vote of any state—on May 29, 1790.

VI In Summary

1. The proposed U.S. Constitution contained no guarantee that the government would protect the rights of the people, or of the states. Some supporters of the Constitution, including Thomas Jefferson, wanted to add a bill of rights—a formal summary of citizens’ rights and freedoms, as a set of amendments to the Constitution.

2. The Call for a Bill of Rights Virginia’s convention opened in June of 1788. Antifederalist Patrick Henry fought against ratification, or approval, of the Constitution. George Mason, who had been a delegate to the Constitution- al Convention in Philadelphia, also was opposed to it.

Talking Points 3. Antifederalists wanted written guarantees that the people would have freedom of speech, of the press, and of religion. They demanded assurance of the right to trial by jury and the right to bear arms.

4. Federalists insisted that the Constitution granted only limited powers to the national government so that it could not violate the rights of the states or of the people. They also pointed out that the Constitution gave the people the power to protect their rights through the election of trustworthy leaders. In the end, Federalists yielded to the people’s demands and promised to add a bill of rights if the states ratified the Constitution.

5. In December 1787, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania voted for ratification. In January 1788, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution, followed by Massachusetts in early February. By late June, nine states had ratified. The Constitution was officially ratified with nine votes. It was vital, however, to get the support of Virginia, the largest state, and New York. Without New York, the nation would be split geographically into two parts. James Madison recommended that Virginia ratify the Constitution, with the addition of a bill of rights.

6. As other states ratified, however, the Virginia Antifederalists played on Southern fear of Northern domination. Under the Articles of Confederation, each state had one vote, and major decisions required the approval of nine of the 13 states. The Constitution, however, provided for majority rule, which means that more than one half of a group holds the power to make decisions binding on the entire group. The North, Virginia Antifederalists warned, would then dictate policy in trade, slavery, and other important issues bearing on the southern economy.

Talking Points 7. After bitter debate, at the end of June, Virginia narrowly ratified the Constitution with 89 in favor and 79 opposed. The news of Virginia’s vote arrived while the New York convention was in debate. Until then, the Antifederalists had outnumbered the Federalists. But with Virginia’s ratification, New Yorkers decided to join the Union. New York also called for a bill of rights. It would be another year before North Carolina ratified the Constitution, followed by Rhode Island in 1790. By then, the new Congress had already written a bill of rights and submitted it to the states for approval.

Vii The Bill of Rights and the Constitution

1. Madison, who took office in the first Congress in the winter of 1789, took up the cause of the bill of rights. Madi- son submitted ten amendments, or additions to a document, to the Constitution. Congress proposed that they be placed at the end of the Constitution in a separate section. These ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution became known as the Bill of Rights.

2. The Bill of Rights Of these amendments to the Constitution, the first nine guarantee basic individual freedoms. Jefferson and Madison believed that government enforcement of religious laws was the source of much social conflict. They supported freedom of religion as a way to prevent such conflict. Even before Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, he worked to ensure religious liberty in Virginia. (In 1786, Madison had helped pass the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally written by Jefferson in 1779.)

Talking Points 3. Freedom of religion is an important part of the First Amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law re- specting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” This means that the government may never support one particular religion, favor one faith above another, or interfere with anyone’s religious freedom.

4. In this way, the Constitution put an end to the kind of religious conflict that had divided the early colonies. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the first amendment built “a wall of separation between Church and State.” Taken as a whole, the Bill of Rights creates an invisible but powerful shield that protects people from government abuse.

VIII Amending the Constitution

The Bill of Rights was more than that. It was the first step in making the Constitution a living document, one that can be amend- ed to reflect the changes in society. The Constitutional Convention provided for such changes. Two-thirds of each house of Con- gress or two-thirds of the state legislatures can propose an amendment. To become law, an amendment then needs the approval of three-fourths of the states. By this process, the Bill of Rights became the first ten amendments. Since then seventeen more amendments have been added to the Constitution.

IX The Federalist Papers #51

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority

Talking Points be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority, that is, of the society itself; the other, by compre- hending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable.

While all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combi- nations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects.

In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good.

It is no less certain than it is important, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practicable sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the republican cause, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle.

X Objections to the Constitution

There is no Declaration of Rights; and the Laws of the general Government being paramount to the Laws and Constitutions of

Talking Points the several States, the Declaration of Rights in the separate states are no Security. Nor are the people secured even in the En- joyment of the Benefits of the common-Law.

In the House of Representatives, there is not the Substance, but the Shadow only of Representation; which can never produce proper Information in the Legislature, or inspire Confidence in the People; the Laws will therefore be generally made by Men little concerned in, and unacquainted with their Effects and Consequences.

The Senate have the Power of altering all Money, Bills and of originating Appropriations of Money and the Salaries of the Officers of their own Appointment in Conjunction with the President of the United States; although they are not the Represent- atives of the People, or amenable to them. . . .

The President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardon for Treason; which may be sometimes exer- cised to screen from Punishment those whom he had secretly instigated6 to commit the Crime, and thereby prevent a Discov- ery of his own Guilt.