Articles Published by the Anti-federalist and Federalists - Essay Example

Primary Documents I. Introduction A series of debates took place among the Anti-federalists and the Federalists during the late 1780s over whether or not to adopt the US Constitution. In this paper, selected articles published by the anti-federalist and federalists are compared and contrasted. An emerging theme is the anti-federalists fears that the new constitution places too much power in the federal government and threatens to create civil unrest and division. The federalists take the position that the new constitution is necessary for averting civil unrest and division. II. An Old Whig An article published in The Massachusetts Gazette on November 27, 1787 questioned whether or not the “proposed constitution” was rushed (AntiFederalist Papers No. 1-85). This article written by and titled “An Old Whig” pointed out that the constitution itself would require that every state in the union revise its existing laws so that those laws are consistent with the US Constitution. It therefore makes sense that the proposed constitution be revised and debated to ensure that it does accomplish that which it sets out to accomplish: the formation of a “great republic” (AntiFederalist Papers No. 1-85). The article expressed fear that the proposed constitution was rushed primarily because the public demanded its passage. However, in rushing the proposed constitution, it was important not to lose sight of the dangers of putting too much power over the entire domain of the country into the hands of so few. Such a constitution must carefully consider the fundamental freedoms of the people and methods by which to safeguard against the abuse of powers by so few over the majority. Therefore it is important that the proposed constitution be revised and accompanied by a carefully drafted Bill of Rights otherwise, the proposed constitution could eventually turn the US into a monarchy (AntiFederalist Papers No. 1-85). III. Philanthorpos An anonymous author wrote Philanthorpos, an article appearing in the Virginia Journal on December 6, 1787. Like An Old Whig, Philanthorpos challenged the propriety of the new constitution “in its present form” (AntiFederalist Papers No. 1-85). Like An Old Whig’s argument, this article took issue with passing the constitution as it was. Unlike An Old Whig, the Philanthorpos provided specific examples of why the new constitution as it was threatened liberties and challenged the formation of a great Republic. For example the new constitution confers upon Congress the power to regulate commerce but does not give Congress the authority to borrow money. Moreover, Congress will have the power to appoint members of the judiciary and can exercise that power for altruistic reasons (AntiFederalist Papers No. 1-85). Philanthorpos like An Old Whig predicted that the new constitution would lead to unstable and autonomous rule. While An Old Whig predicted the formation of a monarchy, Philanthorpos predicted the formation of a “tyranny” and “despotism” (AntiFederalist Papers No. 1-85). The rich and powerful will fight to retain power and the poor will struggle to gain some measure of power and improvement in their lives. The likely outcome would therefore be a civil war (AntiFederalist Papers No. 1-85). Therefore the predictions made by Philanthorpos were far more devastating than those made by An Old Whig. The latter article merely called for a careful reframing and revision of the proposed constitution and the former expressed the belief that it was a downgrade on the previous constitution and would, if presented as it stood lead to political unrest, divisions among the people, autonomy and eventually civil war. IV. Madison The Federalist Papers unlike the Anti-federalist papers supported the new constitution and were written by Jon Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison between late 1787 and May 1788. James Madison’s The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, took an entirely different view of the Philanthorpos and An Old Whig relative to the formation of the new constitution. The article appeared in the New York Packet on November 23, 1787. Unlike the two anti-federalist articles, Madison took the view that the new constitution would cure the imbalance of power among minority and majority powers. It will be recalled that the Philanthropos predicted civil unrest, inequities and eventual civil war. Madison, however argued that the current state of affairs were such that there was a grievous imbalance of powers and the new constitution would cure that imbalance by ensuring that minority voices would be heard (The Federalist Papers). Unlike the two anti-federalist articles cited above, Madison argued that the new constitution would introduce greater participation by the minority citizens who were all too often shut out of the decision-making process and over-ruled by a small majority of the rich and the powerful. The new constitution was therefore necessary for curing this imbalance and safeguarding against the risk of civil unrest. There was a great deal of dissatisfaction with the status quo and there was an undercurrent of civil unrest. In this regard there were one of two choices open to the government: remove the liberty of the people that gave way to expressions of dissatisfaction or to improve the liberty of the people, giving them a greater voice and opportunities to participate in the political system. The new constitution adopted the latter option by ensuring representative government via fair and open elections (The Federalist Papers). V. Hamilton Hamilton’s Federalist article The Executive Department Further Considered appeared in the New York Packet on March 18, 1788. While Madison addressed the concerns of the anti-federalist stances on the civil unrest expressed in the first two articles discussed, Hamilton addressed the issue of executive powers and the anti-federalists fears of the creation of a tyranny (Philanthropos) or a monarch (An Old Whig). According to Hamilton viewing an active executive as a threat to freedom and majority rule, was entirely erroneous. A passive executive was no more than a reflection of a passive and disinterested government (The Federalist Papers). Hamilton argued that: Those politicians and statement who have been the most celebrated for the soundness of their principles and for the justice of their views, have declared in favor of a single Executive and a numerous legislature (The Federalist Papers). According to Hamilton, this tandem works best when the executive is active and energetic and the legislators are wise and safeguards and mediates the power of the executive and the interests of the citizens. In this regard, Hamilton argues that executive powers are primarily exercised in favor of the will of the people as expressed via the legislators (The Federalist Papers). Hamilton argued that placing the final authority in one man made much more sense than placing the final authority in multiple figure heads. By taking the latter approach there are far too many opportunities for error, delay and disagreement. The results can be devastating where there is the need for an urgent decision, particularly with respect to protecting the country from foreign invasion (The Federalist Papers). Therefore, while Madison focused on supporting the constitution by arguing that it supported representation by the majority, Hamilton instead focused on anti-federalist concerns that too much power was vested in the executive via the new constitution. It will be recalled that the first two articles (Philanthropos and An Old Whig) predicted that the new constitution could lead to tyranny, despotism (Philanthropos) and monarchy (An Old Whig). Hamilton countered by arguing that the vesting of power in the executive was necessary for imposing active duties on the executive for safeguarding the interest of citizens from internal and external threats. The separation of powers under the new constitution was necessary. The legislators represented and canvased the views of the majority and invited “contemplation” and discussion (The Federalist Papers). The executive as a single head reduced the opportunities for delay and more especially community discord (The Federalist Papers). Where power was distributed among more than one faction, there were greater opportunities for divisions and unresolved issues. As a result, there would be community divisions which were not good for the stability of the country. The mere fact that the executive was an elected official who could be removed from office by the citizens meant that the executive was obliged to ensure that actions taken were representative of what the majority desired. The legislators’ jobs were to ensure that the executive was aware of what the majority desired so that the executive could act in the best interest of the public (The Federalist Papers). Hamilton’s The Duration in Office of the Executive published in the New York Packet on March 18, 1788 defended the executive under the new constitution further. In this article Hamilton argued that the length of office established for the executive was necessary to ensure commitment to the job. In this regard, Hamilton argued that any public officer who is assured of only a very short term will not be passionate about or committed to his duties as he is functioning under a belief that his tenure is short and therefore about to expire (The Federalist Papers). In other words, Hamilton argued that a short term in office will lead to distraction. Rather than focusing on the job itself, the executive will focus on the fact that this term is short (The Federalist Papers). Thus this article counters the concerns expressed in the anti-federalist arguments as expressed by An Old Whig and Philanthropos that the new constitution as it stood was vulnerable to the creation of tyranny and monarchy. Thus Hamilton felt it necessary to explain the constitution of the executive powers as a whole. While in his previous article Hamilton defended the creation of a single executive, it his article it defended the prescribed tenure for the executive via the new constitution. Hamilton argued that commitment to office is necessary to mediate between the executive’s own personal feelings and the duties of the executive office. The executive’s duties cannot be accomplished in a “transient” capacity (The Federalist Papers). Hamilton advances this argument by pointing out that the executive is not there to identify and give expression to every whim and desire of the public. The executive’s job is to determine that which is in the best interests of the public. After all people make mistakes distinguishing between what they want and what is in the best interest of the public. Guided by passions and emotions, the majority does not always get it right. The cool and level-headed executive, fully committed to identifying what is in the best interest of the public is suited to making this distinction (The Federalist Papers). Hamilton argues further that in order for the executive to be an effective authority the executive must have the commitment of office in his repertoire. For example, there will be times where the executive and the legislatures do not agree and the population may be entirely “neutral” (The Federalist Papers). In these kinds of situations: ...it is certainly desirable that the Executive should be in a situation to dare to act his own opinion with vigor and decision (The Federalist Papers). The four years’ tenure is designed to ensure that the executive is not motivated by personal interests and is offered some degree of security of tenure (The Federalist Papers). VI. Conclusion Hamilton’s defence of the executive is the most interesting argument put forth among the articles analysed in this paper. Hamilton’s defence is the most interesting because it takes an innovative view of what appears to be controversial aspect of the constitution: the vesting of powers in a single unity. For the most part, a single power appears to go against the idea of representative government since one person has veto and executive powers which can essentially bind the nation. The executive power is therefore among the strongest element of the new constitution driving the anti-federalist opposition to the new constitution. Hamilton’s arguments however, turn the anti-federalist arguments around and demonstrate how the anti-federalists fears are misplaced. Rather than threaten tyranny and monarchy, the office of the executive is set up so that it ensures against tyranny and instead safeguards the interest of the public. The office of the executive not only protects the public from itself, but also from external threats to security. Therefore, according to Hamilton, the office of the executive is necessary and proportionate to the needs of a democracy. Works Cited. AntiFederalist Papers No. 1-85. http://www.anamericanvision.com/freedom_documents/anti_federalist_papers/ March 24, 2013. The Federalist Papers. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html March 24 2013. Read More