ANTI-FEDERALIST ESSAY

The ratification of the constitution in the 1780’s and 90’s faced many obstacles within the 13 colonies. States like New York saw the danger of such a document that would unite 13 sovereign states under one law making government with one presiding member resembling the English king. The fear of despotism along with the obvious differences between slave owning, tobacco selling southern states and fish selling northern states made many in New York wonder how these could ever come together as one country with one common focus. However, the biggest requirement of the average anti-federalist was that a Bill of Rights be made and placed in high importance in the government upholding the rights of the people. Without this, there would be no ratification of any constitution.

With the end of the American Revolution, a new government was established in the states and came together in what was called The Confederation. The Articles of Confederation, a legal document drawn up by the continental congress, governed the Confederation. After the war with the British, states acquired a large debt that began the wave of an enormous amount of taxes, which people paid in hard money. Shay’s Rebellion was started by a farmer who could not pay with hard money (The American Promise). Shay’s Rebellion was a good example of how the Confederation government is weak and ineffective as it was unable to squelch the uprising effectively. Many people started to think about a central government with all thirteen states together in one nation. To make the central government more effective they needed a constitution or a written document that showed the rights and liberties of people. However, before the constitution could be identified as a legitimate document, states had to ratify it.

But not all the states agreed, New York being one. As a state consisting mostly of anti-federalists, most people believed that without a bill of rights, they could not “enable the people to judge the legitimacy of acts of government” (Bill of Rights). Without such a document, the people could not determine whether or when government was abusing its power. Without a strong textual foundation, rights would eventually be lost (The American Promise). In the Agrippa XVII, James Winthrop writes, “a bill of rights is essential to the security of the persons and the property of people” (The Debate On The Constitution). Federalists did not initially take Anti-federalist objections seriously, but as the ratification campaign progressed, they began to rethink their position.

The constitutional union of states would be ruled by one political body. This however went directly against the uniqueness of each Sovereign State. Each state had varieties of people, economics as well as governmental structures. Though the constitution clearly dictates "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State... (U.S Constitution, Article IV, Section 1)" it was hard to see the States being held accountable for everything through the Federal Government, especially for New York. Mandating a national economy would be difficult, considering the variety of trade and economic structures that existed within the states. For instance, the southern states had a strong economic base generally exporting slave-grown tobacco to Britain. Those in local government were generally rich plantation owners that would or could not change their entire economic base just to appease northern states. Southern plantation owners feared that if the constitution was ratified, their way of making a living would begin to be frowned upon. The result of which would be that a general lack of understanding would cast their actions in an unfair light. Northern states such as Massachusetts had a strong fishing economy where fish were exported across the Atlantic. Unlike tobacco products, most fish exported from Massachusetts went to the West Indies. Therefore, New Englanders had difficulty relating and debating trading aspects with southern states like Virginia who mainly traded with England. These clear and present differences were in no ways hidden from the eyes of New Yorkers, and though Federalist ideals began to grow, a majority of New York's leading men were against ratification based on these economic differences.

Federalists looked at these economic differences differently. According to their constitution, the central government had an unhindered ability to regulate commerce (Fisher, Federalism and Shared Powers). It was believed that checks and balances, a concept written into the very fabric of the Constitution, would negate any power tripping. It was thought therefore that this could only benefit the nation as a whole by uniting economic, political and relational viewpoints. In the senate, for example, each state took a part in deciding laws by sending their own representatives known as senators. However, anti-federalist’s believed that the extreme differences between a senator from Rhode Island and a senator from South Carolina would cause the two to not come to any agreement. Another difference was found in New Jerseys unique decision to remove the position of governor in their state.

It was inconceivable to many New Yorkers that a document could be passed joining together diverse, sovereign states. This was not because they were ignorant of common ground or of their omnipresent liberties, rather, for fear of a tyrannical central government. Article II of the Articles of Confederation gave each state its sovereignty. Each colony was given a charter signed by the King that in essence created a distant British society that was very much autonomous. The colony could act however it wished in carrying out the government, deciding what to do with land, the structure of society and foreign relations. Of course, the states are not guaranteed or free to all of these things under the Articles of Confederation, for as Article III dictates, "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare”. A loose union of sovereign states had been in effect for much of the last decade. However with inescapable problems beginning to arise within the states, many proposed the answer in the form of a constitution.

Federalists argued that many problems, such as war debt, could all be resolved under an authoritative central government. Hoping that each state could pay off its debt was not enough, there needed to be accountability and a plan in place. Another hope was that a powerful government would do away with assumptions by the international community that the United States was weak; incapable of taking a place on the world stage. No longer would states be making their own laws to fit their specific needs, rather, all power to make and set laws into motion would be given to the legislative branch of the new Federal government (Constitution, Article I Section 1).

None of this argument belayed the fears of the Anti-federalist majority in New York. A central government would be too powerful, and would not represent the country well. The ability to maintain a military during peace time, the ability to override State policy and a position of executive power too greatly resembled the British Empire for New Yorkers to accept and ratify this document. Under the Constitution, the Legislative branch would write up laws that could either be enacted or rejected by the executive branch, similar in theory to Parliament and the King. This similarity only insinuated to New Yorkers that the very same pitfalls and despotism that resulted in England’s government setup would also result from this very same proposed government. The government’s power gave them the ability to enforce laws contrary to the states current laws in their own constitutions (Fisher, Federalism and Shared Powers). This was in effect forcing the residents of that state to comply with what the heads of the government thought right and good for them. Even if this went directly against the residents wants and desires. This is despotism in its truest form.

The lack of a bill of rights, inherent differences between the states and the amount of power given to the federal government were pivotal issues that initially solidified New York as an Anti-federalist state. The fear of despotism and the denial of the liberties of every man, woman and child was very real. The need for a bill of rights could not be bypassed. James Winthrop spoke truth when he described the Bill of Rights as “essential to the security of persons” and their property and it was not for our founding fathers to say otherwise. The Anti-federalist mentality that existed within the majority of New Yorkers pointed out that the differences between them and a southern tobacco planter were far too great to be ignored. Tobacco sent to England from the south and fish sent to the West Indies from the north caused a gap in the common ground of the states. New Jersey’s removal of a governor only bolsters this fact. Based on the Articles of Confederation, it was not right to subject the sovereign states to a higher political power. Therefore, the Constitution had no place attempting to conform multiple diverse populations to one order, nor was there any reason to limit the rights of a free people.

Bibliography

U.S Constitution and Articles of Confederation

Mount, Steve. "The U.S. Constitution Online." The U.S. Constitution Online. 1 Oct. 2007. 14 Nov. 2007 .

Debate On The Adoption of The Consitution

"THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ON THE ADOPTION
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION." The Constitution Society. The Constitution Society. 13 Nov. 2007 .

New York Sentiments On Constitution

Thorpe, Francis N. "The Constitutional History of the United States." Google. 1901.
13 Nov. 2007. Chicago Callahgan & Company

Federalism and Shared Powers

FISHER, LOUIS. "Federalism and Shared Powers." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. Eds. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000. 1010-1013.
6 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. King County Library System. 14 Nov. 2007

Bill of Rights

Rakove, Jack. "Bill of Rights in U.S. Constitution." Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. 454-457. 10 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. King County Library System. 25 Nov. 2007

Antifederalists

Flaherty, Martin S. "Antifederalists." Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. 200-202. 10 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. King County Library System. 14 Nov. 2007

The American Promise

The American Promise, by James L. Roark, Michael P. Johnson, Patricia Cline Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, Susan M. Hartmann, 2005

Federalists and Anti-FederalistsChin, Jonathan, and Alan Stern. "Federalists and Anti-Federalists." Federalists and Anti-Federalists. 1997. 19 Nov. 2007 .

The Debate On The Constitution

The Debate on the Constitution Edited by Bernard Bailyn 1993 by Literary Classics of the U.S, Inc.,New York, N.Y. history Society of Wisconsin: copyright1977 by The University Press. Reprinted by permission.

Personal Responses

Bekka

Anti federalists did not want to ratify the constitution because they were fearful of the government. They did not want a corrupt government that would take advantage of the citizens. I understand why many people were worried about not having a bill of rights. They wanted freedom and did not want their rights taken away. When my parents tell me how to speak, or tell me I am not allowed to do an activity, I can get irritated. I don’t like when my parents attempt to take away some of my rights, so I definitely would not like the government taking away my rights.

I believe I would position myself as a federalist mostly because don’t know what life would be like if the constitution was not ratified. I’ve lived my whole life in the time period which American citizens live under obligation to the constitution. I like the constitution as it is now because I enjoy having rights such as freedom of speech and religion. America has a diverse body of people who have different beliefs and these rights protect all citizens no matter what they believe. I also like the idea of the checks and balance system. This allows elected citizens from all fifty states to play a role in the government by being in the House of Representatives or the Senate. It stops the president from over taxing citizens and becoming corrupt. Originally the anti federalists did not like the idea of a check and balance system because the thought that it might fail. They were ignorant to the fact that this would stop the president from taking advantage of the citizens. This system of checks and balances has worked for about two hundred years. In my life time I have not seen the president become corrupt due to this system.

Ian

Many American’s in the late 1700’s had to struggle with whether or not they would ratify a constitution that brought all 13 sovereign states under one government. Many heard this phrase and immediately negative thoughts of the oppressive English king entered their minds and almost immediately they rejected the idea. Their rejection however was based on fear and ignorance. Those who rejected this idea, known as anti-federalists, did not have much of an understanding about the new proposed government. They did not think of the fact that this government was proposed by a few of the most radical men who were most hostile towards the British King and hated his rule even more than they did. These Anti-Federalists believed that too much power was given to the executive branch of the government to which the president belonged. However the government that these radicals proposed included representatives from each state so that each would have a say. It composed a senate and a house, two groups of representatives from each state which provided checks and balances within this newfound government. This insured that no one group of people could enforce their will upon another. Another fact that these anti-federalists did not consider is the outcome of thirteen sovereign states being allowed to co-inhabit one body of land. They believed that peace and prosperity could best be attained by leaving the states to govern themselves. They failed to think about the wars and the oppression caused by more powerful states preying on less powerful states. This would be horrendous and was all too likely. Upon consideration of all these facts, I am convinced that if I were to live then, I would be a constitution accepting Federalist and not an Anti-Federalist.

Ramila

In early beginning of free America , many great changes took place and one of the significant changes is ratification of the constitution. Many struggles were to ratify the constitution, since the states consisted of Anti-federalists and Federalist. Anti-federalist are people who are against the ratification of constitution, and Federalists are people who are for the constitution. If I were a person that lived in this all confusion about the constitution, I probably would be a Federalist.

If anyone would ask me “why?” I would answer from the modern point of view because no one at that time knew exactly what is going to happen next, “I choose the Federalist way because I like the idea of all thirteen states together as one nation, this way states together have more power against anyone. Besides, the central government is better-organized then confederate government in taxation etc. “Most likely Anti-federalist would ague against my views by saying that states should not join together because states, “..already on sure economic footing, that could afford to remain independent…” (American Promise). In addition, Anti-federalists feared the people would loose their liberties. Anti-federalists should have looked better on the plan of government because it is clearly explaining people will have all rights with the new constitution. But, now days we cannot judge what happen in the history because we know the history from the second hand experience.

Ben Fader

Not only to buck the trend that seems so present, but having also been immersed in the anti-federalist viewpoint, it is safe to say that I would indeed stand against the ratification of the Constitution. Not that I'm against military spending or increased security, rather, it is clear to me that each state was so unique that immediately subjecting states to the goals of the most powerful individuals was in my opinion wrong. Clearly the Articles needed revision, but that's it. Certain powers should or could have been given to a limited central government, and perhaps this body could have handled things that all states were in need of or agreed upon; but having the variety of goals and needs placed under a powerful federal government only leads to concern. Does anyone else perhaps feel that their voice is not being heard? Well I do, and much of it is the extent of the bureaucracy and red tape necessary for those in power to maintain and exercise that power. If States had more control, it would be that much easier to communicate on a more direct level and my vote would mean more with the absence of the electoral college. All in all, I currently am very dissatisfied with the way things work, and though I love this country, I can see many advantages to a revised union without a powerful federal government. I would be an anti-federalist, through and through.