The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists Constitutional Compromise
My thesis in this essay is the compromise undertaken by the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists to ensure that the United States Constitution accommodated all parties. The United States Constitution was originally written in 1787 at the Philadelphia Convention. After the constitution was written, the next formal process was ratification, a process that required nine of the thirteen states to approve of the constitution before it became official. As the constitution underwent ratification, two sides emerged, one side supporting the confirmation and the other side did not support the process. The Federalists supported the sanction, and the Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification. Most people who had written the constitution were Federalists, and therefore, Anti-Federalists felt that the constitution did not address the needs of all Americans equally. The primary concern for Anti-Federalists was the excessive power handed to the central government. On the other hand, Federalists believed that the nation required a powerful national government to thrive. To ensure that the United States had a constitution that addressed the concerns of both sides, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists compromised their needs to accommodate some of their needs. The ratification debate was centred on reasonable negotiation and in the process; the constitution was amended and ratified.
Soon after the United States officially became a country, there was a need to implement a constitution that would govern the country and ensure development. Initially, the country was guided by the Articles of Federation, and they required adjustment to oversee an independent country. The Articles of Federation had several weaknesses that needed rectification if the United States was to become a strong, independent nation. In line with Abernathy, the Articles of Confederation did not allow the confederal government to tax citizens, states were permitted to recall their representatives at will, there was no national and independent judicial system, and the president of the Confederation Conference was less powerful than the state delegates (116). Thus, under the Articles of Federation, the United States did not have a united front which would result in underdevelopment. The Confederal Government lacked certain powers that were vital in uniting the United States and building the economy.
Although the Articles of Federation weakened the United States, some people were reluctant to reform the articles because the central government would have too much power. For instance, the southern states feared that slavery, which was legal and unregulated by the confederal government, would be abolished upon the reforms (Abernathy 117). Thus, the southern states felt like a powerful central government would threaten the sovereignty of independent states. Also, some smaller states feared that they would lose presentation in Congress because the reforms would ensure representation would be based on population. Another section of anti-federalists felt that the new constitution had the characteristics of Great Britain, the colonialists they had fought so hard to gain independence from. Although the anti-federalists did not succeed in their quest to stop the ratification of the new constitution, their efforts ensured the constitution was amended to include some key elements present in the United States constitution currently.
The Bill of Rights reflects the willingness of federalists to address the concerns of the anti-federalists. Among the arguments of anti-federalists was that a powerful national government would be detached from the needs of average citizens. Initially, States were sovereign and free to make decisions in line with the requirements of their citizens. However, the new constitution stripped States and local governments of powers that were essential in upholding the rights of citizens. Therefore, anti-federalists felt that the national government would not pay attention to the needs of average citizens. One of the major concerns of the anti-federalists was the lack of a bill of rights. According to Abernathy, the anti-federalists argued that a bill of rights served to remind the citizens of their natural rights and empowered the people to assert those natural rights in case the government tried to suppress them (155). Therefore, a bill of rights would ensure that the government would never suppress the rights of the citizens of the United States. In response to the counter-argument of the anti-federalists, James Madison, the key federalists, proposed an amendment to the constitution to add the Bill of rights. James Madison proposed ten amendments that made the Bill of rights, and in 1791, the ten amendments became part of the United States constitution (Abernathy 156). By adding the Bill of rights in the new constitution, the federalists portrayed willingness to address the needs of anti-federalists.
The United States needed a new constitution because the Articles of Federation weakened the government. The United States required a united front to develop and become completely independent of Great Britain. However, the structure of leadership undermined the role of the confederal government. For instance, the confederal government did not have powers to ask the states to contribute to the national effort. In addition to the lack of cooperation, the confederal government also lacked funds. Also, the president did not have the powers to implement national policies. The new constitution ensured that the federal government was powerful enough to ask the states to contribute to the national effort. The new constitution also separated the duties of the government into three separate branches to ensure all functions were performed effectively.
The anti-federalists feared that a powerful national government would overlook the needs of the average citizens. Under the Articles of Federation, states were at liberty to implement policies that befitted the needs of their citizens. For instance, southern states supported slavery because the economy of the south depended heavily on slavery. Also, the anti-federalists were concerned that the lack of a bill of rights would give the government power to suppress the rights of American citizens. A bill of rights would grant all United States citizen natural rights that would not be suppressed by the national government.
The federalists were concerned that the United States would not survive without a stronger national government, thus the need for the new constitution. As mentioned earlier, the confederal government did not possess the powers to call upon all the states to contribute to national growth. Also, the government did not have ways to draw funds from the states to develop the nation. However, the constitution empowered the confederal government as well as the president. Although each state was sovereign, all the states were governed under one national government. Thus, the United States would have a unified front under one central government.
The plans involved in the compromise were to add a bill of rights into the constitution. The primary reason that anti-federalists opposed the ratification of the new constitution was that they felt that a national government would overlook the needs of the people. Therefore, the federalists amended the constitution and added the Bill of rights. Another compromise involved was the slave trade compromise. The southern states depended on the slave trade, whereas the northern states wanted to abolish slavery. Therefore, Congress came to a consensus that the slave trade would continue until 1808 when slavery would be destroyed in the United States (Abernathy 140). Such compromises helped federalists and anti-federalists satisfy their demands before the ratification of the new constitution.
The Bill of rights represents the interests of the anti-federalists. The Bill of rights ensured that the central government would not infringe the rights of citizens. The Bill of rights consists of ten amendments that detail the fundamental rights of American citizens in section nine of the United States constitution. The amendments include freedom of speech, religion and the press, protection of rights to life, liberty and property, rights of accused persons in criminal cases and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Civil liberties and civil rights also emerge from the Bill of rights. Civil liberties protect the citizens of the United States from suppression from their government by providing equal protection by the law. The Bill of rights is different from the Articles of Confederation because the law protects the interests of citizens.
Section two of the United States constitution represents the interests of the federalists. The section is about the three arms of government and their functions. Federalists pushed for a central government where most power would lie in a national government. Article I state the duties of the legislative arm, article II rules the responsibilities of the Executive and article III states the duties of the judiciary. The three arms of government ensured that power in the central government was divided among three branches to provide balance. The section is different from the Articles of Confederation because the national government holds power over all states in the United States. The Articles of Confederation denied the government the right to tax or regulate the economic systems of different states. However, under the three arms of government, the central government taxes all states to develop the United States as well as oversees the operations of all independent states.
Article 1-7 of the United States constitution details the core components of how the country is governed. Article I is the legislative branch which makes the laws of the land. Article II is the executive branch which manages the operations of the government. Article III is the judicial branch. Article IV is the states, and the article outlines the relationship between the federal government and the states. Article V is the amendment which gives future generations the right to amend the constitution. Article VI is debts, supremacy and oaths. Article VII is ratification which details the people who signed the constitution.
The core principles of the constitution are to protect the rights of all citizens and detail how the government runs the United States. The constitution places the power in the hands of the people by giving them the democratic right to elect their leaders. Also, through detailing the duties of the three arms of government, the constitution outlines how the federal and the state governments are run. The nature of federalism is affected by anti-federalists because both sides had to compromise to come up with an agreeable constitution.
The constitution has endured over 200 years because federalists and anti-federalists compromised. Furthermore, the constitution clearly outlines the roles of federal governments and state authorities. Also, the constitution allows the future generation to amend the constitution when they need as in article V. I do not think the United States Constitution requires amendment. I think the constitution serves effectively in protecting the rights of citizens as well as regulating the daily operations of the government. The future generations have a right to amend the constitution when need by, by following the amendment procedure (The National Constitution Center). Therefore, although the constitution is effective, the citizens of the United States have a right to amend the constitution.
In conclusion, my thesis in this essay is the compromise undertaken by the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists to ensure that the United States Constitution accommodated all parties. The compromise by both sides ensured that the United States had a strong constitution that has endured over 200 years.
Works Cited
Abernathy, Scott F. American Government: Stories of a Nation, The Essentials. Cq Press, 2018.
The National Constitution Center. Amendments . 2019. 1 November 2019 <https://constitutioncenter.org/ >.