The term government entails the process in which a society organizes itself in order to accomplish certain goals that are of benefit to that society. There are different forms of government that include democratic, aristocracy, communism, monarchy among others. In this paper I will look on how the United States form of government was formed and how the Federalist and Anti-Federalist shaped it.
Background information
The constitution of the United States establishes the Federal government, spells the fundamental laws and outlines the basic rights of citizens. The U.S. constitution was drafted by men who had thoughts of a great American. Before the U.S. constitution was drafted American were guided by the Articles of Confederation that had so many limitations that the American people did not like. In the Articles of Confederation, each state acted as an independent nation, there was no national president and Federal courts (History.com Editors, 2021). What was common was the legislature which was a Congress of Confederation.
When America won the American Revolution war in 1783, it became clear that the young nation needed another form of government in order to be stable. The idea of the new form of government necessitated a congress meeting to be convened at Philadelphia. The delegates came with a mind of amending the Articles of Confederate, but during the proceedings an idea of a new constitution that accommodated a form of national government with executive, legislature and judiciary was born. In that convention that was carried out in closed doors, the delegates who came from different backgrounds framed a new constitution (History.com Editors, 2021).
Since the new draft constitution gave more powers to the national government than state governments, a rift was formed. The leaders and citizens who were for the new constitution became the Federalist. While, those who were against the new constitution formed the Anti-federalist (History.com Editors, 2020). The difference in ideologies about the new constitution made the states to disagree on the ratification of the constitution. To convince the states to ratify the constitution, statesmen Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison who were in support of the new form of government wrote articles on newspapers referred to as Federal Papers.
Federalist versus Anti-Federalist
Federalist were in favor of a strong central government than state governments. They believed a strong central government was in a position to solve Union problems in a better way. They wanted a government that could have power to have a Union military, impose taxes and compel states to adhere to legislations passed by Congress. On the other hand, Anti-Federalists were against a strong national government (Trident University Library, n.d.). They feared power being bestowed on one person. They thought the strong central government would make them go back to the pains they had gone through the British monarch.
While, the Federalist sided with the establishment of Federal courts, Anti-Federalist believed those courts would deny them justice. The Anti-Federalist believed Federal courts would be far from them. They had experienced unfair judicial treatment under the British government. This was because Americans were made to travel to Britain where cases were heard and verdict given. This had denied the accused an opportunity to avail witnesses. The Federalist established Federal courts in each state (Trident University Library, n.d.).
Another issue of contention was on how the central government would be controlled. The federalist argued that there would be a system of checks and balances. The executive would be vetted by the legislature and judiciary. The same for these other arms of the government. But, also the Anti-Federalist pointed on a situation where an arm of the government would interfere with another arm and as a result render the separation of powers futile. The Federalist strongly believed each arm will have power to appoint or remove leaders from other branches from power if they violate their offices mandate (Cornell Law School, n.d.). For example, Congress can impeach president on ground of misconduct like corruption.
The absence of a bill of rights was another issue that made Anti-Federalists refuse to ratify the new constitution. They argued that their civil liberties will be violated by the central government. The Federalist initially argued that the new constitution was sufficient in protecting individual’s liberties. But, when the resistant became immense, they agreed to amend the constitution and incorporate the bill of rights in the 10th Amendment of the constitution (The U.S. National Archives, n.d.).
Can there be democracy and good governance without political parties? The Federalist were of the idea that political parties were not good for a nation peace. They defended their position using the bloody civil wars in England due to political party differences. The framers of the constitution avoided incorporating issues of political parties in the constitution. But, Anti-Federalist wanted fractions to thrive. They argued that failure to have political parties would inhibit diverse viewpoints and would create the worst government. George Washington, a Federalist, had appointed Anti-Federalist in his first cabinet to silence fraction but they could not agree to his ideologies. (Pruitt, 2019).
In conclusion, the process of drafting and ratification of the U.S. constitution was not a walk in the park. The biggest challenge was in convincing states to ratify it. The Union, now the United States, could not be formed without ratification of the constitution. Though, constitution was intended to bring all the Americans together, it created division, Federalist and Anti-Federalist.
