The Federalist-Anti-Federalist debate and the Age of Enlightenment

The National Archives
In the National Archives can be found the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1787 after fierce debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, opposed the loose Confederation that existed following the War for Independence. The Federalists wanted to ensure that a central or federal government would exist that could help to regulate commerce and issue currency. The Anti-Federalists, led by men like Patrick Henry, saw a central government as leading in the same direction to tyranny like that which they just fought a war against. As Sayre (2013) points out, it was a time in which the Age of Enlightenment was giving way to the Age of Romance. The French Revolution was about to get underway in Paris, and the enforcement of ideals (and even the deification of Reason) would soon be taking place in a bloody manner. The Constitution was meant to be a safeguard against chaos and disorder. By consolidating the power of the states into the hands of a few representatives, the Federalists judged that they could guide the new nation into the future without having to see any more bloodshed. They were guided by men like Thomas Paine, who hated the English crown. The document had to be ratified by the states in order to pass into law, which is why the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalists Papers were written: each meant to persuade the public for or against the Constitution. Ultimately, it was a battle for power—would states have the power or would a central government have the ultimate say? In the end, the Federalists won out.
The document fits in with the revolutionary works of the Enlightenment and Romantic eras—documents like The Rights of Man by Paine, which highlighted in 1791 all the ideals of the Revolution. These rights focused on individual liberty and on the production of a new system of government. They paid little heed to the inner demons of mankind, that have always plagued society throughout history. The times were invested wholly in the concept of Reason and the use of Reason as the guiding force. The Romantics, having their fill of Reason would turn to Emotion and the inner workings of the soul and mind—passion—as another force compelling human nature onward. Poe, the American gothic writer, would create some of the most memorable stories of horror in the 19th century, showing the interplay between reason and romance, logic and passion, rationality and irrationality. However, with the Constitution, the Americans were throwing their weight behind Reason—arguing that without a document which plainly spelled out what the states could and could not do, there would be chaos. The Anti-Federalists urged caution and indicated that when power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it leads to tyranny. The Constitution, they argued, would re-introduce a new system of tyranny into the American nation. Under the guise of Reason, the Constitution would reawaken monsters. In other words, it was like Goya’s work, “The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.” Instead of the Constitution representing the work of Reason, it was actually the putting to bed of Reason and tying the hands of the individual states who had just fought a monstrous tyrant in England—so said the Anti-Federalists.