Few, if any Governing documents in the history of the world have been as celebrated as the United States Constitution. Hailed world wide as a document of democratic genius and time-tested wisdom the Constitution has been the foundational document to the world’s greatest civilization to date, both in size, riches, ingenuity, and freedom America is second to none, or so the story goes. However in 1787 after the constitution was drafted at the congressional convention in Philadelphia a fierce ten month debate broke out in American politics and political philosophy over whether this new constitution should be adopted. Rhode Island was so outraged they would not even hold a convention of ratification and New Hampshire rejected ratification (of course after the nine states that were needed ratified the other states did eventually follow suit.) The adoption would in effect bringing the thirteen states under one centralized national government, before this the united states had been thirteen sovereign states that had bound themselves together in contract as a union, with a congress that had representatives from each nation state. The difference being each state conducted it’s affairs separately and each state passed its own laws and taxes, with some portion from each states revenue going toward war funds. This agreement was titled the Articles of Confederation. The group in favor of ratifying the Constitution chose the name the “Federalists” and they ardently defended the need of a new government as laid out in the afore mentioned constitution. The other group was dubbed the “anti federalists”, though they considered themselves to be the True Federalists, they did not so much disagree with the constitution, but rather with certain consequences that might arise from it (Storing). The debate ended in 1788 when the nine of the thirteen states needed voted to adopt the constitution. History often portrays the victors of any battle as the protagonist and so was and is the case in this piece of American History. The losers are rarely remembered and often maligned ,but why did the Anti federalists oppose one of the world’s most beloved government systems? (Borden)
One of the major concerns of the Antifedralists was the lack of a bill of rights in the constitution. Though at the time of its conception states had their own bill of rights the constitution did not. Some had argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary or even dangerous because it would inevitably leave out some rights. However the Antifedralists contended that unless there was a bill of rights incorporated into the constitution it would lead to abuses of those rights. Just as had happened under British rule.
“This principle, which seems so evidently founded in the reason and nature of things, is confirmed by universal experience. Those who have governed, have been found in all ages ever active to enlarge their powers and abridge the public liberty. This has induced the people in all countries, where any sense of freedom remained, to fix barriers against the encroachments of their rulers. The country from which we have derived our origin, is an eminent example of this. Their magna charta and bill of rights have long been the boast, as well as the security, of that nation. I need say no more, I presume, to an American, than, that this principle is a fundamental one, in all the constitutions of our own states; there is not one of them but what is either founded on a declaration or bill of rights, or has certain express reservation of rights interwoven in the body of them. From this it appears, that at a time when the pulse of liberty beat high and when an appeal was made to the people to form constitutions for the government of themselves, it was their universal sense, that such declarations should make a part of their frames of government. It is therefore the more astonishing, that this grand security, to the rights of the people, is not to be found in this constitution..” Brutus II November 1, 1787 (Lloyd)
Massachusetts became the battle ground for the most important skirmish on the issue. At this point in the ratifying process five other states had already ratified the proposed constitution but at the convention for ratification in Massachusetts opposition by Antifedralists was strong and it looked as though the state would be the first not to ratify. During the last week of the convention the two sides came to an agreement, led by James Madison and Sam Adams, known as the Massachusetts compromise, which basically said that Massachusetts would ratify the constitution on the terms that a bill of rights be included once the constitution was put in place. This then became the model for which the remaining states ratified. Had it not been for the efforts of Antifedralists to include a bill of rights we may have never had one. As it turned out on the congress’ first official meeting it added ten amendments to the constitution, we know them as “the Bill of Rights”. We have the Antifedralists to thank. (Lloyd)
Another concern was with the amount of power that would be vested in the president who could eventually usurp enough power to become a defecto king, one who could decide at the drop of a hat to engage in war. It was also thought that because of the prestige of the position in time it would amount to a monarchy or atleast a continual rotation of aristocrats. This level of prestige had an inherent danger one in the ability to control a standing army but even more frightful was the notion that eventually the congress itself would come under the influence of so central a power . This was of course how the British empire worked and for that reason alone it was not popular among Antifedralists. Again we find that in some case and to some level all these projections have turned out to true. Despite the framers efforts and in seeming opposition to the constitutions checks and balances the President has become more powerful than either of the other two branches. He sends us to war at his leisure and has arguably the most influence over the legislator and over the judiciary by way of party alignment on the one hand and judicial appointment on the other. (Lloyd)
Judges posed another problem to the Antifedralist mind, seeing as there was no check in the constitution to their power and no ability for the people, congress or the president to remove them. The judiciary was the final bridge between the government and the people, it would directly interact with the people rendering decisions on their rights and how they would follow laws laid down by the congress and administered by the Executive. But unlike the other two branches which at least gave, if only in lip service, some representation and control to the people, the judiciary was not elected and could not be removed or punished by the people. No matter the number of errors or the lack of legal reason a supreme court justice could be removed only by God almighty (Lloyd). Brutus XI explains the danger involved in such a powerful court.
“The judicial are not only to decide questions arising upon the meaning of the constitution in law, but also in equity.
By this they are empowered, to explain the constitution according to the reasoning spirit of it, without being confined to the words or letter.
“From this method of interpreting laws (says Blackstone) by the reason of them, arises what we call equity;” which is thus defined by Grotius, “the correction of that, wherein the law, by reason of its universality, is deficient["]; for since in laws all cases cannot be foreseen, or expressed, it is necessary, that when the decrees of the law cannot be applied to particular cases, there should somewhere be a power vested of defining those circumstances, which had they been foreseen the legislator would have expressed; and these are the cases, which according to Grotius, ["]lex non exacte definit, sed arbitrio boni viri permittet.” Brutus XI January 31, 1788 (Lloyd)
The danger here being that the Judge becomes not only he who rules over cases according to the law but can, as he sees fit, change the laws laid down by the constitution or laws as given by the legislature. In essence he becomes a law make unto himself with no power to remove him and no ability to check his decisions. We see this played out today in our midst by way of judicial activism.
Some Anifedralists argued against the set up of congress as laid out in the Constitution. The major concern being a lack of proper representation. First the house of representatives was to be filled according to the population of each state, which at first sounds fair until you realize that every five slaves will be counted as a three freemen in terms of representation, which makes no sense since they are not being represented at all. Not to mention that a country that is claiming the equality of all men is treating some men as animals. (Lloyd) In addition this gives southern states the ability to ship more and more slaves in to garner greater influence in the house. The representatives also are too small in number considering there is only one for every thirty thousand, certainly not enough to be a true representative government. Brutus III refers to such a lack
“No free people on earth, who have elected persons to legislate for them, ever reposed that confidence in so small a number. The British house of commons consists of five hundred and fifty-eight members; the number of inhabitants in Great-Britain, is computed at eight millions � this gives one member for a little more than fourteen thousand, which exceeds double the proportion this country can ever have: and yet we require a larger representation in proportion to our numbers, than Great-Britain, because this country is much more extensive, and differs more in its productions, interests, manners, and habits.” Brutus III November 15, 1787 (Lloyd)
Regarding the senate no true representation was in place, the members were elected by state legislature and numbered only two per state, a number which is completely incapable of truly representing the different views, characters, classes, concerns and regions of any state. Lastly they feared that with so few representatives in each house the rich and aristocratic would with their money and influence eventually become a ruling class. In each instance these fears have become our reality. The senate and house are full of the rich and self interested who through fortune and influence continually get elected. As the Antifedralists feared an aristocracy now rules over every extent of our lives. Not a representation of the constituents but rather a few ruling the many. And if by chance one through skill rises from the ranks of the common to become part of this group they get corrupted by the influence of this new found lifestyle and power.
The question was also raised as to the legality of the constitution, after all the delegates of the Philadelphia convention had been given authority to amend the Articles of confederation not abolish them. The original intent of the Philadelphia convention was to amend certain problems with the Articles of Confederation. The Continental Congress or ruling body under the Articles of Confederation had vested the delegates of the Philadelphia convention with power to amend not change the then current form of government. The continental congress sent an announcement to the states that read as follows
“A Convention of delegates should meet “for the sole purpose of revising the articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.“ (Lloyd)
Much debate has been made about whether or not those sentiments meant that the delegates could rewrite our system and do away with the old. The fact that many of the delegates refused to sign the constitution and that all the deliberations and discussions were done in secret behind closed doors and veiled windows only lends its self to speculation that it was indeed known to them that they had no such authority. (Lloyd)
The Federalists made the counter argument time and again in their writings that a well organized central government was essential to secure and defend an American nation and preserve our Union. A federal government which could move more swiftly in war time and react quickly to both foreign and domestic problems which threatened our way of life (Lloyd). They decried the Articles of Confederation as a document that lacked the ability to govern and protect its nation. To that I would say they were right! That was the intent of the convention, to bring forth amendments that might critique and fix the problems that everyone agreed needed to be resolved. To argue that so vast an undertaking as usurping the entire government and replacing it with one so hastily put together and with the input of only a few could hardly be considered a democratic way of resolving such issues. As to our ability to protect ourselves from foreign enemies I would reply on two fronts the first being a matter of fact. We had just repelled the greatest military force know to man when we defeated the British attempts to place us again under their yoke. Secondly would it not be much better to fight a tyrant or enemy under the deficient Articles of the Confederation than under the Constitution willingly subjugate ourselves to an overbearing Aristocracy here at home?
The great patch work of ideas that somehow has brought together so vast and diverse a nation as ours must acknowledge those who even in defeat served their country, and the antifedralist fall under such a distinguished banner (Storing). These men were not simpletons nor were they ignorant of government and politics, some are among our most notable leaders and founders such as, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, George Mason and James Monroe. Nor should we forget their warnings, warnings which have more often than not become our reality. We have become a country whose once bright beacon of freedom is now tinted by so much corruption, one whose ringing bell of liberty has been quieted by a judicial presidency of law making from the bench, a country weighed down by a burdensome bureaucracy which now seems to know no end and has an unquenchable thirst for our money. It becomes our job, neigh our duty to look back and as some have said stand on the shoulders of giants and take a look at our former paths our present situation and decide what we desire our future as a country to be. How long till we as a people take back our government from an aristocratic few who use us to further their agendas. Government is a pervasive evil which seeks to devour all the power it can and the only thing that keeps it in check are the power of the governed and I fear the Antifedralists were right ,we have been duped and now have a government which has become too powerful. Where does that leave us? We ought to be sober enough to hear the voice of the Antifedralists not as those who sought to stop progress but as those who sought to protect individual freedoms and limit government. In the final estimation it must be said that the Antifedralits concerned themselves with one thing, power. Restricting the power of the government and securing the power of the governed. Concerns that we ourselves must be occupied with if we seek the establishment and continuance of a more perfect union.
Works Cited
Borden, Morton. The Antifedralist Papers. Michigan State University: Michigan State University Press, 1965.
Lloyd, Gordon. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/fed-antifed. 15 November 2009.
Storing, Herbert J. What the Anti-Fedralists Were For. The University of Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981.
I’m living in paradise right now, so I’m kind of staying out of the political loop right now. But every time I poke my head out to see what’s going on, I get the feeling that things are on the verge of something big! I don’t know what that something is, but does it feel like emotions are running high right now when it comes to political issues? Is this the way it always is, or are things more heated right now than usual?
