American Distrust of Centralized Government: Origins and Impact

Introduction: A Nation Wary of Central Power

There is a strong traditional preference for local government over centralized government in the United States. This preference goes back to the very beginnings of the nation and can be plainly seen in the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over the ratification of the Constitution. It can still be seen today in the never-ending political cry to put an end to "big government." There is an obvious distrust of centralized government in this country, and its political history and current political climate prove this time and time again.

What are the reasons for this preference for local government and distrust of centralized government? How can public administrators use this information to their advantage? Are these feelings likely to ever change? This paper examines these questions by tracing the historical roots of American anti-centralism, exploring its recurring manifestations across the nation's history, and considering what public administrators can do with this knowledge.

The traditional distrust of the American people for centralized government is evident in the form that the first post-Revolutionary government took. By the time the Revolution ended, the Founding Fathers had in place a constitution to govern the new nation: the Articles of Confederation. The Articles set up a very loose alliance between the states, with a weak central government to oversee interstate affairs. This central government had no real power beyond what the states granted it and was largely ineffective. The states essentially became their own separate nations, each with the power to produce its own currency or even declare war independently. The central government was merely a figurehead — an administrative body that acted on behalf of the states only when they chose to cooperate. There was no chief executive, only one house of Congress, and motions required a unanimous vote, with each state receiving a single vote regardless of population. As a result, it was practically impossible for this central government to accomplish anything with the real force of law behind it.

Yet, in spite of the obvious weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, the Founding Fathers were reluctant to revise them. The American people were equally reluctant to make a change, no matter how clearly one was needed. This reluctance stemmed from a deep-seated mistrust of centralized government. The people feared that strengthening the central government would threaten their freedoms and liberties. The general consensus was that a central government more powerful than the states would have both the means and the temptation to take freedoms away. Because the states each had their own constitutions protecting individual rights, people placed far greater trust in their state governments and preferred that those governments continue to do the bulk of the governing.

Colonial Roots of Self-Governance and Mistrust

Where did this mistrust of centralized government originate? The answer lies in the earliest days of colonization of the North American continent. When the first colonists sailed from England to America, they did so under charters that granted them the right to establish governments wherever they settled and to create their own rules. Because England was so far away, the king recognized the practical difficulties of governing the colonies from across the ocean and concluded he had more pressing concerns at home. The colonists were therefore granted a remarkable degree of autonomy and grew accustomed to self-rule. As part of this self-governance, most colonies embraced personal freedom and individualism, weaving these principles into their way of life.

This freedom, however, was not to last. By the end of the seventeenth century, England had endured a civil war, lost its monarchy, and then restored it. The new king wanted greater control over the colonies. He began to revoke charters and impose imperial rule through the stationing of British soldiers in colonial settlements. Subsequent monarchs followed the same course. It was not long before colonists who had grown accustomed to personal freedom found themselves under the rule of a distant monarchy that seemed intent on dismantling those freedoms.

This erosion of liberties continued for decades. Taxation without representation in Parliament became a major grievance. The forced quartering of soldiers in private homes was a persistent point of contention. Random searches of private residences and the wanton seizure of property by soldiers enraged many colonists and became standard Crown practice. New generations were born who had never known the freedoms their forefathers had once enjoyed. Nevertheless, the desire for freedom and the mistrust of the Crown were passed down to these new generations, who harbored the same sentiments regarding liberty as their fathers and grandfathers. It was these generations — raised to love freedom and distrust centralized authority without having experienced colonial self-rule firsthand — who sowed the seeds of discontent that led to the American Revolution.

The Constitutional Debate: Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

The struggle between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over ratification of the Constitution is another powerful illustration of American mistrust of centralized government. When it was finally acknowledged that the Articles of Confederation had to be revised — since the weak central government was producing considerable disorder — there was still no intention of scrapping the entire framework. The original plan was to make only targeted changes that would allow the central government to operate more smoothly. However, once the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787 and delegates began suggesting reforms, it became clear that the entire document required revision. The Founding Fathers ultimately produced an entirely new Constitution that created a strong centralized government and made the federal authority superior to the states. Under this new arrangement, the states were subject to the will of the federal government — something that had not been the case under the Articles. Though the Constitution adopted a principle of federalism, sharing power between national and state governments, it also established through the National Supremacy Clause that states could not enact laws conflicting with federal law.

While many Founding Fathers embraced the new Constitution as exactly what the country needed, others were alarmed at the prospect of such concentrated central power. Thomas Jefferson was among those who viewed the Constitution with deep concern. He believed the country was best governed when governed the least, and he envisioned the nation's future in independent farmers living by their own labor and making their own choices. He prized independence for the common citizen and felt the Constitution threatened it. The country soon divided into two camps: the Federalists, who supported ratification, and the Anti-Federalists, who opposed it.

One of the Anti-Federalists' greatest objections was that the Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights to formally protect citizens' liberties from government encroachment. The Federalists considered such a document unnecessary. They argued that the values of freedom and liberty upon which the nation was founded were so deeply embedded in the people's hearts and minds that there could be no question the government would uphold them. After all, they reasoned, the government was to be a government by the people and for the people. Furthermore, the Federalists noted, the Constitution did not authorize the federal government to do anything beyond what was specifically enumerated; since it did not grant the government power to strip citizens of their rights, it therefore could not do so.

The Anti-Federalists found this assurance insufficient. They argued that if the rights and freedoms of the people were not explicitly protected in the Constitution, the federal government could simply claim the authority to remove those rights. Shared values, they insisted, were not a reliable safeguard. The Anti-Federalists believed that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that those who would hold federal office would be no exception to this rule. They demanded a written guarantee. The Federalists ultimately conceded, and a Bill of Rights was drafted and appended to the Constitution. The Constitution was subsequently ratified.

The fact that the Anti-Federalists distrusted the federal government even before it assumed its current form testifies to the depth of anti-centralist sentiment running through the American people. Having experienced their rights and liberties being trampled by the centralized government of England, Americans were wary of any governing body with too great a concentration of power. The prevailing feeling was that the more concentrated the power, the greater the likelihood that government would perceive individual freedom as a threat and move to curtail it. The Anti-Federalists knew how readily such promises could be broken once power began to corrupt officeholders — which is precisely why they insisted on a written guarantee that liberties would always be protected, regardless of what any future government might wish to do.

Conclusion

The American people have always preferred local government to centralized government. This preference goes all the way back to the colonial era, when individual freedom and self-reliance were embedded in the charters that governed the colonies. The mistrust of centralized government traces to the stripping away of those charters by the English Crown and the subsequent erosion of individual rights and liberties that followed. This mistrust has persisted throughout American history and continues to the present day. While public administrators and engaged citizens can help alleviate it, it is not likely to ever completely disappear.

Understanding this deep-rooted preference for local governance and suspicion of centralized authority is essential for anyone working in or studying public administration. The history reviewed in this paper makes clear that American anti-centralism is not a passing political mood but a durable feature of the national character — one that any effective public servant must reckon with seriously.

References

Articles of Confederation. Philadelphia, PA. 1782.

"Colonial Charters." (2000). Kuyper Institute. Retrieved on December 3, 2003 at http://capo.org/Charters.html.

"Colonial Government." (2000). USGenNet. Retrieved on December 3, 2003 at

"Colonial Government." (2001). USA History. Retrieved on December 3, 2003 at http://www.usahistory.info/colonial/government.html.

Constitution. Philadelphia, PA. 1787.

"Constitutional Topic: The Federalists and Anti-Federalists." (1995). The United States Constitution Online. Retrieved on December 3, 2003 at

Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence. Philadelphia, PA. 1776.

Knott, Stephen F. "What the Anti-Federalists Can Teach Us." On Principle. (1997). 5(1).

"Revolutionary War: Birth of a Nation." (2000). History Central. Retrieved on December 3, 2003 at http://www.multied.com/revolt/causes.html.

"States' Rights." (n.d.). Civil War Home. Retrieved on December 3, 2003 at http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm.

Tapper, Jake. "The Era of Big Government Is Back?" (2003). ABC News. Retrieved on December 3, 2003 at

"The Destructive Force of Government." (2003). Big Government.Org. Retrieved on December 3, 2003 at http://www.biggovernment.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=59.

"To Form a More Perfect Union: The Work of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention." (n.d.). Memory.Loc.Gov. Retrieved on December 3, 2003 at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/bdsds/intro01.html.