Federalists versus Antifederalists: political debate and ideology

FEDERALISTS vs. ANTI-FEDERALISTS

Constitution of September 1787 that was created in Philadelphia made a requirement of nine states ratifying it, and this was a requirement that was built in to the Constitution, before it could be enacted. There were those who supported the Constitution being ratified and those who did not. Supporters of ratification of the Constitution were those known as the 'Federalists' while those who opposed ratification of the Constitution of September 1787 were known as 'anti-federalists'.

PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION of 1787

The work of Semonche (2003) entitled; "The Debate Over the Constitution: Federalists vs. Antifederalists" relates that the Philadelphia meeting was called for the express purpose of giving consideration of whether the Constitution should be ratified or not. As well the meeting was also called for the purpose of introducing changes into the 'Articles of Confederation' which had been quickly forgotten as "an entirely new framework of government" was crafted by the delegates (Semonche, 2003; p.1). Semonche states that in order for changes to have been made to the 'Articles of Confederation' required would be "...the unanimous consent that had doomed suggested amendments earlier." (Semonche, 2003; p.1)

II. NEW FRAMEWORK of GOVERNMENT

Semonche relates in his work that those who supported this new framework of government with powers that were delegated and one that "operated directly upon the citizens of the new country" instead of operating in the same fashion as the 'Articles of Confederation' did which was upon the states themselves, were the Federalists. The Antifederalists however, were fiercely opposed to these changes in the framework of the government. Semonche states that the Antifederalists opposed the Constitution and hoped to revive the discussion around the 'Articles of Confederation' however; the Antifederalists lost the battle in Philadelphia resulting in the Constitution quickly becoming "a revered document combined to relegate their cause to the scrap heap of history." (Semonche, 2003)

III. REVIVAL of the ANTIFEDERALISTS FRAMEWORK of GOVERNMENT

The Antifederalists view of the proper role of government has been "resurrected...in recent times" with a new interest in federalism which is "the proper balance between state and national power under the Constitution." (Semonche, 2003; p.2) the differential factors in the beliefs or views of the world among Federalists as compared to Antifederalists is the root of the controversy as the belief of the Federalists was for a government that was "strong and effective" and one that "would ensure commercial growth and international prestige..." while the Antifederalists perspective was one that held a government that was strong as one that would threaten the liberties of citizens. It is interesting to note the statement of Semonche that Antifederalists tended to live inland where small farming operations were located while Federalists preferred to live along the coastlines in high commercial growth areas of the country. The Federalists view of the Constitution was one that questioned the compromises required in ratification of the Constitution as compared to the provisions of the 'Articles of Confederation'. However, there was more faith in and respect among Antifederalists for legislative power and it was their belief that "bicameralism and the separation of powers" was the appropriate means for checking the system. The Federalists viewed these checks and balance devices as merely checks on the power of the legislature and a tool in driving the power of the executive and judicial branches of government. Concerns of the Antifederalists included concerns over taxation of citizens and the possible enslavement of citizens to the government in its power to tax and as well they questioned how limited a congress actually was that had the power to pass all laws with only the requirement that the laws be "necessary and proper." (Semonche, 2003; p.3) the Antifederalists were further concerned because they contended that there was a departure of the Constitution in the conference of powers on government rather than what they viewed should be a limiting of those government powers. The Constitutional debate in Philadelphia lasted under the period of a year and the Antifederalists concluded that the document was legitimate due to its having been ratified. The Ant federalist legacy lives still and the debate of 1787 which took place in Philadelphia lives on in today's political landscape in the United States.