Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

Federalist/anti-Federali In many ways, the initial political parties in the fledgling nation of the United States were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. As the names of these partisans indicate, many of their ideals and objectives were diametrically opposed to one another. For the most part, Federalists were in favor of a strong centralized government, while Anti-Federalists were more committed to states rights and autonomy.

As history indicates, in the end the Federalist viewpoint decidedly won and played a far more influential role in the shaping of the country -- especially in contemporary times -- than that of Anti-Federalists. Federalists favored a strong centralized government largely because of what was perceived as the inefficacy of a decentralized government in which individual states had a great degree of authority and independence from one another. The Articles of Confederation was one of the major impetuses for the Federalist viewpoint.

The Articles provisioned states rights and explicitly called for a unanimous decision on the part of all states for any substantial federal measures to take place (Rowland, 1977, p. 1574). When there was the need for federal intervention (such as when it was necessary to mobilize against other countries, which became evident with border disputes in the early years of the U.S.) it was difficult to get all states to agree on action. Anti-Federalists largely favored states rights because of the experience that the colonialists had with England.

These supporters (which included Thomas Jefferson early on) were weary of tyranny and the omnipotent authority of a central government, and preferred the autonomy and independence that each state could have instead. One of the chief points that Anti-Federalists differed with Federalists on was a centralized bank, which Alexander Hamilton was largely responsible for founding during George Washington's tenure as president. Most states had banks at the state level (Van Cleve, 2014, p. 529).

One of the most tangible indicators of the differences between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists was found in the ratifying of the constitution. The notion of states rights vs. those of the federal government were at the core of this prolonged process. Anti-Federalists feared that states would lose their power and autonomy -- which is why some (such as Rhode Island) refrained from ratifying the Constitution for as log as possible.

Federalists, for their part, were concerned that there would be too many rights given to the states and not to the centralized government. Furthermore, there were conflicts between these two partisans regarding ratification due to the notion of representation. There was debate about whether representation in the newly formed three branch system of government would be based on population or if each state would have equal representation, which in turn brought up questions of slavery and the effects of slaves on a state's population.

Thus, there were several concessions made between these two groups to get the Constitution to a point in which all states would ratify it. The system of checks and balances over the three branches of the government helped to alleviate the fear of a too strong central government. Additionally, the Bill of Rights was promised to provision the rights for individuals which many Anti-Federalists favored. Also, the issue of representation was decided by the Great Compromise, which combined the Virginia Plan.