RHETORIC AND RATIFICATION:
US CONSTITUTION
Reflection Analysis 4
Joseph Casale
PLCY 702: The Founding Era and Constitution
April 18, 2021
2
Introduction
The federal and antifederal arguments were essential in the constitutional ratification
debate. The debates provided platforms where both views were shared with the public, and
compromises were agreed upon. Both sides provided prominent arguments that allowed the
development of a strong presentation of their case to the public. Therefore, both sides presented
candid arguments that they supported using their argument skills. A detailed look at the
perspective of the argument presented by both sides is critical to understand how they
contributed to the eventual political changes in the country. Analysis reveals the supporting
arguments for each side, revealing their contribution towards the constitutional ratification
debate.
View of Anti-Federalists
The anti-federalists formed a group of the political class that did not favor the
development of a federal government. They used certain powerful arguments to push their
agreement that dissent the development of a federal government. Major figures in this section
include Patrick Henry. Typically, this group included small farmers, landowners, laborers, and
shopkeepers. Given the kind of people who made up this group, it is clear that they were
interested in securing their properties. The idea of a federal government felt like a threat that
could take away their property (Walker 2016, 388). The fear felt by the anti-federalists is valid,
given that no man should be subjected to foreign rule. Every man must choose his path freely
and chose the leader that serves them. A federal government felt like a foreign government far
from local people’s reach and would probably not care for their needs. Additionally, the federal
government was perceived as a means of extorting the local people using taxes and unfavorable
governance.
3
The first concern expressed by the anti-federalists was the excessive power granted to the
national government. The powers of a federal government were a concern because there were no
defined limits to the federal government’s role. The anti-federalists felt that a central government
that overlooks the state governments’ operations would undermine the latter. Storing (2008, 258)
feels that most anti-federalists were filled with fear of what a central government could do to the
ordinary man. It would do the harm that the people had fought so hard to relieve themselves from
the influence and control of nations such as England.
Liberties and Rights
To an extent, a federal government could harm the liberty acquired under the Declaration
of Independence. Anything that seems like a threat to a man’s liberty must be rejected and
dismissed. Liberty is a principal right to humankind that arises from God. Civil liberties include
some of the inalienable human rights as was later included in the bill of rights. God, using his
scripture, indicates that every man is equal and no man should be above any other. It was,
therefore, important to honor the scripture, for it is Gods’ breathed and useful to guide humanity
on how they should live (2 Timothy 3:16-17 [Revised Standard Version]). It was important that
as a nation of believers, they obey God’s word and strive to live a free and independent life.
It is prudent to note that at this time, there was no bill of rights. Therefore, their argument
for rejecting the idea of a federal government was valid. The bill of rights is an essential part of
the rule of law, for it would protect the people from the domineering powers of a federal
government (Amar 1991, 1132). Additionally, the lack of clear and well-written documentation
that protects the government’s normal man is a justified cause for concern. However, the
federalists acknowledged the problem and joined hands in working for the bill of rights in the
spirit of working together.
4
Additionally, a federal government was arguably too far in terms of political height to
address the vital needs of people at the grassroots of the economy. As previously noted, most
people who argued against the federal government were the local people with low income.
Therefore, it was sensible for such small business people to think that a federal government was
unfathomable and added no value to their needs.
The federalists supported the establishment of a central government. The central
government would have some overarching powers over the state governments. Therefore, the
central government would have the powers to make decisions that affect the various states
regardless of the states’ views. Therefore, in some administration areas, the states would have to
act according to the demands and policies provided by the federal government. The federalists’
main aim with establishing a federal government was to create a powerful central government
that would check the various involved states’ activities. This strategy was important, given the
various divisive politics that had affected the country several decades before. Unity was of the
essence if the new country was to flourish in its operations. A central government was one way to
ascertain the desired unity of the nation.
Bringing Unity
It is important to understand the value of a powerful central government. The country had
just declared its independence from England. Therefore, that meant that the various states were
free from the political influence of Europe. However, in the ununified status, the states risked
attacks from other nations or even against each other. Most of the federalism supporters could
not fathom getting back to a state of colonization of being a territory of a foreign power. It is in
God’s interests, a purpose for humanity to rule themselves and given the freedom and the ability
5
to reason. These gifts are bestowed upon humanity to rule themselves without the power and
influence of a foreign nation such as England.
John Jay argued the value of a united government when faced with a foreign enemy. In
his paper, the author points out that a united America was better placed to fight a foreign enemy
than any of the thirteen states on their own or even two or three confederacies (Madison,
Hamilton, and Jay 1888, 167). Therefore, the sense of unity as a protection method from foreign
enemies supports the argument for one central and powerful government. Such a government can
solicit resources from all the states and conduct any warfare as a united front.
One of the vital aspects of unity is ensuring that no state acts to jeopardize the country’s
unity. Therefore, the central government would be the ideal body that would provide the state
government’s checks and balances. There had already been noted that some states were acting in
a manner that suggested their desire to control other states. Such acts would greatly jeopardize
the union. Den Hartog (2017, 5) indicates that facets of a religion connoted the unity concept as
envisioned by the federalists. The unity of Christ was a popular phrase among the pro-federalism
leaders. All the states needed to work and co-exist together harmoniously and work seamlessly
with one another. A central government provided the body that would see all states work closely
with each other yet independently.
The sense of unity under one government could also expand to the realms of economic
prosperity. As already noted, the sons of liberty, both in the divided groups either supporting and
against federalism, wanted to flourish economically. Jay (1787) noted that the various territories
and states were better chanced with prosperity if they united. A central government would
enhance the close coordination of
6
To counter the fears of an overbearing federal government by the anti-federalists, the
constitution would provide the needed checks and balances. Therefore, a constitution would
ensure that the federal government does overreach its influence in the various states and their
operations. Therefore, the constitution would be a guide into how the states interact with the
federal government. Arguably, the states would not forfeit all their political and economic power
to decide the federal government. An additional aspect of the federal government’s regulated
influence was the federal courts’ influence on the state courts’ ways. The federal courts were
limited in their influence upon the state courts. Therefore, the federal courts would only meddle
with the state courts’ affairs within the constitution’s jurisdiction. In the interest of justice, state
courts must be intervened by the federal courts to discourage them from making rulings that
demean the rule of law, such as the bill of rights.
Federalist Argument
The argument put forwards by the supporters of federalism indicates that a federal
government did not have the overarching powers as fathomed by the anti-federalists. The
national government would only have powers in areas that the constitution allowed. These were
vital matters that would affect the nation as a whole or would jeopardize national unity. The
powers of the federal government were proposed and listed by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay
(1888, 578). Therefore, even though the federal government would have overarching powers
over the states, the influence is limited to only certain areas.
To ascertain civil liberties, the bill of rights as dictated by some anti-federalists was
developed. The inalienable rights included in the bill or rights would ascertain humanity’s
protection from the government's abuse (Madison, Hamilton, and Jay 1888, 326). Protection for
the weak is a virtuous course that every noble person must embrace. Therefore, the bill or rights
7
development provided the central government’s needed legitimacy and assured the anti-
federalists that a central government would not compromise their liberty.
James Madison was a federalist who did not believe in the bill of rights. However, he
became adamant about the value of the bill of rights and took the initiative to join hands with the
anti-federalists to draft the bill of rights. Bailey (2012, 59) notes that James Madison was
majorly motivated by political expediency. Therefore, to him, it was necessary as a means of
buying the objecting anti-federalists and certainly, improving the constitution. James Madison
was clever to do whatever it took to see that a federal government was realized. However, in the
end, his effort proved even more important than he thought in the first place.
Conclusion
The debate over federalism created a chasm between the American people. Some
supported and opposed the formation of a central government. The arguments presented by those
against the formation of a central government and those who supported the government revolve
around its powers, jurisdiction, and influence among the people. Those who opposed the
government based their argument on the premise of abuse of powers by the central government.
On the other hand, those who supported the idea managed to illustrate how the central
government's powers could be monitored through the constitution. They also illustrated how
such a government would help unite the country, enforce security among the people and even
enhance liberty by enforcing the constitution. The argument presented by the supporters of a
federal government overwhelmed those who objected. However, the process was filled with
arguments that draw value of liberty, protection of people’s rights and even ensuring unity. Both
sides used biblical concepts to enhance their arguments on various points such as unity, human
rights, dignity and freedom, and enhancing power through centralized governance.
8
References
Amar, A. Reed 1991. “The bill of rights as a constitution.” Yale Law Journal 100, no. 5: 1131-
1210. https://doi.org/10.2307/796690
Bailey, D. Jeremy. 2012. “Was James Madison ever for the bill of rights?” Perspectives on
Political Science 41, no. 2: 59-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2012.660441
Den Hartog, Jonathan. 2017. “Religion, the Federalists, and American Nationalism”. Religions 8,
no. 1: 5-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel8010005
Jay, John. 1787. “Concerning dangers from foreign force and influence.” Yale Law School.
Accessed April 14, 2021. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed02.asp
Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. 1888. The federalist. GP Putnam's sons.
Storing, Herbert. 2008. The complete anti-federalist (Vol. 1). University of Chicago Press.
Walker, Douglas. 2016. “Necessary to the security of free states: the Second Amendment as the
auxiliary right of federalism.” American Journal of Legal History 56, no. 4: 365-391.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ajlh/njw012
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
