Federalism/ Anti-Federalism Basics

1

Federalist/ Anti-Federalist Paper

Kalia White

The Political Theory of The American Framing

29th of April, 2019

2

The Federalist Constitution masks a partially centralized government, which could be the

cause of potential power abuse by both faction and, individuals if not for the effective preventive

measures which have been put into place as the government system developed over time. This

being said, the Federalist approach to governing still stands as the better option than what the Anti–

Federalists tend to favor.

Introduction

In quick summary, the Articles of Confederation

1

failed due to a lack of strong power

within the system. Following the Articles, a strong executive branch was established, and the

federal government was mainly decentralized. However, not fully and so there was enough room

left for factions to naturally form and execute their will. The preventive methods in place which

stand between faction and their narrowed goals, are not ideal. However, it is the best option

available even if it comes at the expense of some liberty of the individual states and the people

themselves. The later introduction of the Bill of Rights

2

ensured that the most important aspects

of liberty will remain protected, and so with this in mind the Federalist approach triumphs over

the Anti-Federalist ways of governing.

1

“Articles of Confederation.”

2

“Bill of Rights.”

3

Federalist Background

In the past, the Federalists were ironically drawn towards a national government. However,

proposing for a true national government wasn’t a realistic option at that time. So, the focus shifted

to federalism but certain aspects on nationalism were still being sought after to implement into the

constitution. For example, the Federalists wanted to strengthen the national government’s power,

specifically the executive branch even when doing so would come at the price of individual states

giving up power and therefore becoming naturally weakened. Furthermore, reduced power of the

states would mean the people themselves would no longer be as influential as they should be when

looking from a moral perspective. Without a doubt, this power shift, if it were extreme could not

pass as a true representation of what federalism is supposed to be.

Fortunately, the issue of power being taken away from those who should have it, did not go

unnoticed, and James Madison had proposed the Bill of Rights which would protect the civil

liberties of people. Alexander Hamilton, however opposed the Bill of Rights in Federalist paper

No. 84. Hamilton believed that simply put, the Constitution was not created to limit the people and

that the Constitution itself acted like a bill of rights.

“…the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF

RIGHTS. The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the

constitution of each State is its bill of rights. And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the

bill of rights of the Union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political

privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the

most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions

for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions. Is another object

of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to

personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases,

in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to

allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention. It may be said that it does not go far

enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended

that there is no such thing. It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order

4

of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are to be found in any part of the instrument which

establishes the government.”

3

James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 39 talks about federalism as being something that would

make the nation stronger and whole. The paper indicates a favor of balance between the states and

the national government, yet one thing was being said and another done. Both of which were

contradictory to each other.

“If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be

made, we find it neither wholly NATIONAL nor wholly FEDERAL. Were it wholly national, the

supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the MAJORITY of the people of the Union; and

this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to

alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the

concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding

on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles.

In requiring more than a majority, and principles. In requiring more than a majority, and