Federalists vs. Antifederalists: Why a Central Government Creates an Effective Nation

When the Constitution of the United States of America was completed in 1787, two very different parties formed, each with contradictory views. The main issue was the strength of the central government and who has power. The Federalists, chaired by Alexander Hamilton, believed in a strong, central, national government in which the power lay in the wealthy elite. The Antifederalists, led by Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry, believed that the national government should be very weak and that the states governments should have more power. In addition, they believed that sovereignty always lies in the people. While the Antifederalists’ concerns about the government’s power and people’s rights were understandable, the Federalists’ national government will create a stronger nation, because it enforces laws while protecting people’s rights.

The Antifederalists believed that power should lie with the common people and that the Constitutional Convention should create a bill of rights. Both of these ideas are extremely important, because they reflect the exact views that colonists had years ago when they fought in the American Revolution. In particular, Thomas Jefferson supported the Antifederalists. He believed that people were naturally born to help the common good. In 1789, he states, “Whenever the people are well- informed, they can be trusted with their own government; whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them on rights.” Jefferson supports John Locke’s ideology, and his faith in the commoners is admirable. Since people are destined to help the general public, each person should have some sort of say in the government. In addition, since the power lies within the people, each person should be completely free. The Antifederalists pushed for a document later known as “The Bill of Rights” which secured the people’s natural liberties such as the freedom of the press, religion, speech, etc. If people’s rights are not defined, the nation will eventually collapse. Several examples include the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Haitian Revolution. The Antifederalists’ views are extremely justifiable and are genuinely geared towards the greater good.

While the Antifederalists made several key points, the Federalists’ views will surely lead to a stronger government. The Federalists believed in a central government that enforced laws but still protected people. As R.B. Bernstein noted in “The Argument over the Constitution”, “Federalists insisted that a bill of rights was unnecessary, because the Constitution gave the federal government no powers to infringe or interfere with individual rights.” There is a misconception that the Federalists were tyrannical and overbearing. The Federalists still very much believed in people’s inalienable rights. However, they also believed in a national government, and they created executive and judiciary branches that actually enforced laws. For example, the Whiskey Rebellion was immediately demolished when nearly 15,000 militiamen were sent to Pennsylvania. As Alexander Hamilton once said, “…of magnifying a riot in an insurrection, by employing in the first instance an adequate force. ‘Tis better to err on the other side. Whenever the government appears in arms, it ought to appear like a Hercules, and inspire respect by the display of strength.” Hamilton suggests that the government NEEDS to control its people in order to survive. In a decentralized government revolts like Shays’ Rebellion could occur. George Washington agreed with Hamilton’s views and in response to Shays’ Rebellion, George Washington stated, “Employ the force of government against them at once.” Here Washington is very clear about how executive branch should handle the people. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson declared, “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing…It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” The Antifederalists’ lackadaisical attitude towards punishment directly illustrates how people will NEVER be controlled in their system, while they can be in the Federalist system.

In all, the Antifederalists’ views on human rights were very important, but the Federalists’ political model was very effective. The classic debate between weak and strong national governments still exists today. The Tea Party, a new political group led by Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Bill Miller, and Rand Paul, believes in decreasing the national government’s power. According to “Why Business Doesn’t Trust the Tea Party” in Bloomberg BusinessWeek, “[the Tea Party will] preserve the Bush tax cuts, end the estate tax, lower taxes on savings and dividends, repeal the federal health- care reform law, abolish the Federal Reserve, and shrink federal agencies…That’s certainly what the leaders of this anarchic, decentralized movement are selling.” The deduction of power cannot be good for a country, especially one like America, that is in terrible need of political, social, and economic guidance. While the Tea Party, like the Antifederalists, wants to preserve people’s rights, their ideas are not practical nor effective. In all, the Federalist government model will ensure a strong nation.


----Dr. Korfhage, could you please review my thesis in a comment? Is it what you are looking for?