Federalists vs Anti-Federalists: The Constitution Debate

What is the Constitution? The Constitution summarizes the laws of the United States of America and it founded the government that we use today. Although the Constitution is accepted today, anti-federalists opposed the Constitution in 1787, specifically because anti-federalists believe that the new government would have no power and the military would overpower. Federalists, or those that supported the Constitution, countered the arguments against the Constitution by stating that the new government would unite the United States of America and it would have power, and the military would not be overpowering.
Anti-federalists opposed the Constitution and one of their arguments was that the government had no power. Anti-federalists thought that

the government would ruin them, some saying that the government could not reign over the United States of America due to it being so vast (Doc. A). Additionally, anti-federalists would talk of the British government, saying, “In the British government, there are real balances and checks: in this system there are only ideal balances,” therefore showing their support of the British government (Doc. A). There was also the belief that the United States of America as a whole was incapable of uniting altogether, there rendering the new government powerless (Doc. B). Since the Constitution seemed to have be based on the principle of freedom, anti-federalists said, “We dissent, first, because it is the opinion of the most celebrated writers on government, and confirmed experience, that a very extensive territory cannot be governed on the principles of freedom,” and showing their disbelief in the Constitution and its principle (Doc. B). To anti-federalists, the United States of America was too broad of a region to rule all of it as a whole (Doc. D). Due to the anti-federalists believing that the new government would lack the power to unite the United States of America, they were opposed to the Constitution and its ratification.
Additionally, anti-federalists thought that the military would overpower the new government. Due to the anti-federalists believing that the new government would be incapable of uniting the United States of America, they believed that the citizens would rely upon the military if the Constitution were to be ratified (Doc. E). Anti-federalists think that if the government cannot command citizens of the United States of America to form troops, the military will have to intervene, therefore forcing citizens to do so (Doc. E). Since the new government would be overpowered by the military, anti-federalists oppose the Constitution.
Federalists, or those that support the Constitution, had to counter the anti-federalists’ arguments as to why the new government would work.

In response to the anti-federalists arguing that the new government would have no power over the country, they said that the Constitution would unite the United States of America as a whole. Federalists countered the argument that the new government would lack power, saying, “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other,” therefore stating that the new government can benefit political parties (Doc. G). Also, federalists said that Congress would be capable of executing laws, showing that the new government would be in control of the nation (Doc. F). Federalists also stated, “Congress likewise are to have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, but have no other command of them, except when in actual service,” to prove that the Congress could provide for the military too, therefore showing that the government had nationwide power (Doc. F). The federalists countered the anti-federalists’ argument that the new government would hold no power in its hands by saying that the United States of America would

unite and justifying how through examples, such as the Congress executing the country’s laws.
The federalists also had to counter the argument that the military would overpower the new government. Federalists had to prove that the new government would be capable of reigning over a nation without reliance upon the military. By saying that the new government would not call upon the military unless it was necessary, federalists showed that the new government was capable of executing its own laws by itself (Doc. F). Additionally, federalists said that the new government would merely discipline the military, not order it, therefore they could not rely upon the military to help them execute the law (Doc. F). To counter the argument that the military would overpower the new government, the federalists proved that the Constitution could enforce laws sans the military.
In conclusion, the anti-federalists opposed the Constitution and its ratification, believing that not only would the new government lack power, but the military would overpower it too. In response to arguments made by the anti-federalists, federalists said that the new government would have power by uniting the majorities as a whole and also that the new government could control the country without the military having to be involved. Like the federalists said, the Constitution would unite the majority, as it did with the Constitution itself being ratified by the majority ― the federalists.