Federalists Argumentative Analysis

While today many Americans think of the greatest dispute in the history of the United States to be the Civil War, the arguments over the Constitution were ultimately more important to the formation of America as it is today.
The arguments between the Anti-Federalists and Federalists led to the creation of a document that has stood the test of time and new governments have repeatedly modeled their governmental structure off of the Constitution. Despite the overwhelming majority of the Anti-Federalists’ concerns over many of the Constitution’s provisions being unfounded, their apprehensions regarding disproportionate amount of influence men of property could have on government officials have since become a scary reality, ironically due to their own insistence on implementing a Bill of Rights. Since the Supreme Court deemed that the United States government had no right to limit money spent on elections in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, wealthy donors, including corporations, have contributed millions upon millions of dollars into elections at all different levels of
government.
The Anti-Federalist party was composed of farmers who did not fear Shay’s Rebellion, slaveholding plantation owners weary of the northern states’ majority in the proposed Senate, and townsfolk and farmers that had settled inland, away from the Natives. Despite being from many different backgrounds, both socially and economically, these followers of the party were able to bond over their shared fears of what a Federal government could do to influence their liberties in multiple regards that included, but were not limited to, the dissolution of state governments, the creation of a standing army, the over taxation of individuals, and the ability of the government to turn into a tyrannical force. George Mason of Virginia believed that the Constitution of 1787 created a power that was “calculated to annihilate totally the state governments,” echoing the sentiment of many other Anti-Federalists writers of the time. These worries were rooted in the idea that the men of Congress would become power hungry take what power the states were left and simply absorb it for themselves. Furthermore, the Anti-Federalists believed power corrupts even the most genuine leaders and feared that with the structure explained in the Constitution, the President and Congress could unite and destroy the innovative republic that so many citizens had fought for. Mason argues that while the Federalists claim to have a legitimate system of checks and balances, their assertion that the “judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity” leaves too many avenues of exploitation open to the men of the judiciary and congress. Mason poses the question, “What objects will not this expression extend to?” in response to the quote above to force readers to visualize how far deep into the roots of the reader’s culture the judiciary's laws could weave. Moreover, Mason contends that “they will be the judges of how far their laws will operate,” and it will only be a matter of time until someone abuses his power and puts the liberties of the people at risk. Another common point of contention for the Anti-Federalists was that Constitution, as they saw it, demanded that one set of laws govern the colonies, an expanse larger than much of Europe. As James Winthrop of Massachusetts articulated, “It is impossible for one code of laws to suit Georgia and Massachusetts.” While that proclamation would have been true if the Constitution were to govern all laws of the the states, in reality the Constitution left much of the laws to be decided by each state’s legislature. Anyhow, many other Anti-Federalists agreed with Winthrop, and Mason added “It is ascertained that by history that there never was a government, over a very extensive country, without destroying the liberties of the people.” This quote further delves into another topic: the Anti-Federalist belief that a government, unless it transitions to monarchy, cannot rule over an expanse of land as large as America. In spite of history’s rebuttal, Federalists were determined to overcome past democratic governments shortcomings and create a lasting republic.
Despite the many concerns raised by the Anti-Federalists, the Federalist argument eventually won out because of James Madison and party’s deft political maneuvering and persuading.
The folk behind the Federalist movement included farmers on the frontier, businessmen near navigable water or involved in interstate trade, minorities whose rights were unprotected by the states, and slaveholders who realized the benefits of the Three Fifths Clause. Furthermore, many of the important faces of the American Revolution, including George Washington and Ben Franklin, were Federalists and helped sway a public that held them up to be godly figures of early republic. Madison’s anonymous papers such as Federalist 10 helped the party to dominate a Federalist-friendly press and have their ideas spread throughout the country. In Federalist 10, Madison turns a what Antifederalists view as negative aspect of the Constitution, a consolidated government over an immense land, and turns it into a remarkable bonus that avoids any faction getting an upper hand. Madison considers that men of a majority will oppress the minority if “the impulse and opportunity coincide” and that “neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control” to these urges. Therefore, a government that is divided up into many factions can have no one ruling majority and in turn, no group will predominantly sway to oppress a minority. Madison then continues on to say how a “pure democracy” of a small number of citizens can “admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction” because on such a small scale, nearly everyone, besides the minority, will belong to the same faction and in turn, the majority. To combat the problems of a strong majority, Madison argues that the elected officials will “discern the true interest of their country” and will avoid the temptation to succumb to the needs of “temporary or partial considerations.” Madison worked to find a balance in the number of representatives
because while he wanted congress to have few enough representatives to be able to conduct business effectively, he also desired that representatives know “all the local circumstances and lesser interests” of their constituents. Madison final Constitution of 1789 had many stipulations that were added to diminish the Anti-federalist fears expressed in the paragraph above. Most importantly, the addition of the Bill of Rights that limited the powers of the federal government created a sense of safety for many of the Anti-federalists who feared the potential dissolution of citizens’ rights as well as states’ rights. The Federalists were hesitant to add the Bill of Rights because they believed that the Constitution gave the power to the states in what was not stated as the power of the federal government. Furthermore, the system of checks and balances created by the Federalists was eventually accepted by some Anti-federalists due to, among other things, its explicit stating that Congress could not outlaw slave trade, tax incomes, and tax individual states. Moreover, Congress’ ability to impeach the President and override the President’s veto power if it were able to reach a two-thirds majority quelled some of the extremist fears of an elected President turning the government into a monarchy. The Federalist arguments triumphed because they catered to the fears of many folks who feared the dangers of multiple confederations. Madison’s shrewd political mind created the United States as we know it today.
The men who created the Constitution could not have possibly realized the sheer number of court cases that came down to the many different interpretations of the language of the Constitution. Each Justice understands the Constitution in their own way, just as each Christian reads the bible differently. In today’s world one of the Anti-federalist concerns has come back into focus: the role of the a person’s amount of property in relation to his political influence. The Anti-Federalist viewed the Three - Fifths Clause, that specifically gave more power to slave owners. The more slaves, or “property,” an owner was in charge of, the more votes he was given in Federal elections. Anti-Federalists viewed this clause as a harbinger for more property related influence clauses to follow because they could see no line at which the logic was to be drawn; to them, the slave owners paradoxically argued that the slaves were simply property, nothing more than a heifer, but also human enough in that they deserved additional votes for their owners. Anyhow, in 2008, Citizens United, a Political Action Committee (PAC), sued the Federal Exchange Commission (FEC) on the grounds that FEC violated the group’s constitutional rights of free speech. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the plaintiff's favor, allowing corporations to voice their opinions on who should be elected to office through media not sanctioned by the politician. Corporations have deeper pockets than the average American and the corporations can help decide who ultimately wins without disclosing their influence on the election. While the Anti-Federalists the worried over the idea of more property equating to more votes, the present problem laid in the fact that the more money one has, the more he can influence the opinions of other voters; on top of the added influence, the PACs are not required to disclose their funders so the public may not know the true biases of their politicians. Ironically, while the Anti-Federalists fought for the addition of the Bill of Rights it ultimately lead to the unregulated political spending. The arguments led by the majority insisted that the First Amendment grants free speech to not only individuals, but also corporations and unions. The money spent on the 2012 Presidential Election through outside groups was more than twice the money spent on any previous election. Moreover, these “Super PACs” fund elections that aren’t near where the PAC’s have their bases, but hope to garner an additional vote in the overall House of Representatives. For example, the Koch brothers, owners of the second largest private company in the United States, and their political network spent over 400 million dollars in 2012 elections not only the President, but also Congressmen. In the 2016 campaigns, the Kochs plan for their network to spend over 800 million dollars, rivaling the totals raised by both the Republican and Democratic parties. The influx in the money belittles the impact that the average American can have on an election with their own, small donation. While the Anti-Federalists could never have expected the First Amendment to be the clause that led to an inequality in the voices of the people, overall benefits of the First Amendment in accordance with their worries cannot be understated. While the Anti-Federalists may not be entirely thrilled with the country and its government as it stands today, the Constitution and its amendments have kept the government in check and allowed the United States to become the most powerful country in the world.