Federalists vs Anti Federalists

Federalist Papers
1
In Federalist Paper #1, it was stated that history will teach that emphasis on the rights of man is far more likely to end in despotism and tyranny than emphasis on “firmness and efficiency of government” (Federalist No. 1, 2008). In other words, Hamilton and the Federalists were now trying to back track and step back from America’s emphasis on the Rights of Man (Paine’s philosophy and words) eloquently put forward in the Declaration of Independence and used to justify the revolt against the Crown. Now that independence had been gained, the Federalists wanted a strong, central government that they themselves could control so that they could effectively lord it over the individual states and circumvent any autonomy or individual states asserting their rights. The best example of this, of course, would be the Civil War, in which the Federal government would deny the states the right to leave the Union, even though there was no law prohibiting it. The Federalists wanted to run the U.S. and the first thing they had to do was back track from the philosophy and focus on individual rights that had been used to justify the Revolutionary War in the first place.
2
In Federalist No. 10, the cause of factions is said to be in the “nature of man”—i.e., man is by nature corrupt and prone to dissension. Madison states that the corrupt nature of man makes him predisposed to have “a zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions” and that all these differences and attachments inevitably make men divided. The fact that men tend to differ on religion, politics, etc., is what causes factions and throughout history has “inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good” (Federalist No. 10, 2008). To control for the effects, Madison proposes curbing man’s liberty and forcing conformity upon him so that all share the same beliefs, attitudes and perspectives.
3
The statement, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary” (Federalist No. 51, 2008), means that men are not pure intellect or reason but are also made up of animal passions and can be quite irrational at times. Thus, because men are like this they need to have a government that will be able to govern them and protect them from themselves. Thus, this statement is used to justify the division of powers in that the division would keep men from inflicting harm upon themselves, as the division would operate in a kind of checks and balances manner. As is stated by the Federalist Paper 51, “in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” The division of powers would thus enable the governed to be governed while also obliging it to control itself, just as was argued.
4
In Federalist No. 84, it is stated that no bill of rights is needed in the Constitution and the example of New York is given, as New York has no bill of rights in its constitution yet does state some specific rights and privileges to its citizens. The author goes on to assert that the Constitution itself would be the bill of rights and therefore any added emphasis or focus on a bill of rights would be superfluous and unnecessary. Too much focus on rights would make the Constitution meaningless as it would just be another Magna Carta. The Constitution that Hamilton is recommending is something different: a document to which “a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns” (Federalist No. 84, 2008). In other words, Hamilton was stating that the Constitution would merely focus upon general issues likely to be faced by the nation.
Anti-Federalist Papers
1
Anti-Federalist Paper #1 states that “The PEOPLE are the grand inquest who have a RIGHT to judge of its merits.” According to the author, the ones trying to prevent this are the Federalists, who want to construct a central government that will judge of itself what is good for the people and what is not. In other words, the rights and freedoms of the people that had just been won during the Revolutionary War were in danger of being taken away by the Federalists who wanted to brush aside the rights of man for the sake of the rule of the state, so it is argued in Anti-Federalist No. 1 (1787). It is stated thus: “In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one. The former are ruled by the will of the whole, expressed in any manner they may agree upon; the latter by the will of one, or a few.” Without the consent of the individual states, there can be no guarantee of individual rights; and thus those who would call for a central government are inherently opposed to individual rights.
2
Anti-Federalist No. 9 (1788) uses satire to expose the hypocrisy of the Federalist position because it is inherently absurd and preposterous, especially for a people who have just embraced Paine’s ideas and philosophy of the Rights of Man, warred with Britain to achieve those Rights for themselves, and now find that some in their midst want to brush aside those Rights and institute a new king in the form of a central government. They show the Federalist’s perspective on the average citizen as a person who is incapable of thinking for himself or acting with any kind of decency. Instead, every citizen is a rabid dog who cannot take care of himself. He must have a high and mighty superior who is capable of making all the decisions for him and making sure he does not hurt himself or others—i.e., he must have a central government that will protect him. That is how the Anti-Federalists depict the Federalists as viewing the common man—as incapable.
3
Anti-Federalist Paper #46 asks, “Where then is the restraint? How are Congress bound down to the powers expressly given?” What makes the Anti-Federalists think that Congress has too much power is that there would be no authority over it—which is why the Paper states: “no other power on earth can dictate to them, or control them, unless by force; and force, either internal or external, is one of those calamities which every good man would wish his country at all times to be delivered from.” The proposed Bill of Rights plays into this because it would give a place “to which we might appeal and under which we might contend against any assumption of undue power, and appeal to the judicial branch of the government to protect us by their judgments” (Anti-Federalist No. 46, n.d.). It would in other words provide an alternate source of authority that could be used to keep the federal authorities in check—which would make sense for Federalists, since they were the ones arguing for checks and balances as well. Yet, they opposed a Bill of Rights—precisely because it would theoretically keep their power in check and restrain their control over the states.
4
Anti-Federalist Paper #84 states that the Constitution needs to be “founded on a declaration or bill of rights” because otherwise there would be no clear provisions about specific types of rights that man should have—such as rights regarding a person who has been accused of a crime. The individual states had bills of rights regarding this type of right, and they had them because they deemed it necessary to define the rights. Without definition nothing could be assumed. Thus the anti-federalists deemed it vital for the Constitution to have a Bill of Rights because they felt it would keep the federal government’s rights in check as well. If only what was permitted to the government was defined, and states rights and individual rights were just assumed to be covered by everything else, the lack of definition would make it so that there would be a lot of room for commandeering of power. The Anti-Federalists did not want a central government taking on too much authority for itself.

References
Anti-Federalist No. 1. (1787). Retrieved from
https://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus01.htm
Anti-Federalist No. 9. (1788). Retrieved from
https://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus09.htm
Anti-Federalist No. 46. (1788). Retrieved from
http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/46.htm
Anti-Federalist No. 84. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd/anti-fed-84.htm
Federalist No. 1. (2008). Retrieved from
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed01.asp
Federalist No. 10. (2008). Retrieved from
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp
Federalist No. 51. (2008). Retrieved from
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp
Federalist No. 84. (2008). Retrieved from
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed84.asp