Anti Federalists Pros And Cons

In the debate our class held between the federalists and anti-federalists, set at a convention where the basis of the Constitution would be decided. Based on the arguments presented and the background information we have learned throughout the course, the anti-federalists' side made the better case. Almost all of the support provided for federal rights was countered with valid information from the time period or did not weaken the points made for states' rights. Our team, the proponents of states rights, made the points that the large states could dominate the federal government and make decisions that do not reflect the population's wishes as completely as possible. We went on to argue that the powerful central government could come to oppress

its subjects just as Britain did, with the wealthy, Caucasian, Protestant males in the voting class supporting greedy rulers who do not respect the citizens' natural rights. The brief rebuttals that the federalists gave on these two points did not explain how their vision of the Constitution could their controlling government, in which the states' government bows to Congress, could sustain the values on which the United States were founded on.

The arguments that the federalist team pushed for the most were the failure of the Articles of Confederation to lay the foundation for a proficient economy, and to give the federal government executive power. The first of these problems can be solved in our Constitution without placing state governments under the federal government. If, following the ratification of the Constitution, states weren't divided by population issues, they would soon realize that a common currency and lack of tariffs would be in their best interests. The decision to could be made by the representatives in a slightly more decisive Congress without the need of a super-majority, which even advocates of decentralized government could agree to. The federalists argued with the preconception that our side was not willing to change from the Articles of Confederation other than in name, which isn't true. Anti-federalists felt that the Articles had to be dismantled and only some pieces were valuable enough to become a part of the Constitution, mainly the level of autonomy given to state governments. While it is true that a weaker federal government could not enforce its own laws to the best extent, our arguments regarding the possible slide back into

tyranny under a strong government would have persuaded most of the delegates at this convention to choose secure natural rights. If the federal government became stronger and determined representation by population, the smaller states would be entrusting many facets of the government of their unique territory to an organization dominated by those who do not care about improving its social and economic environment. When our side expressed that the majority of voters may not represent the consensus among United States citizens, the focus was shifted to the anti-federalists' less progressive stand without that point being countered. The incorrect implication of our side – that anti-federalists wanted more people to get the vote – does weaken this argument, but it is still put together well enough to win some support from the hypothetical convention. With America in the state that it was in at the time, the Federalists did not provide a good enough justification for the power they wanted to give the central government. Neither the delegates nor the audience would agree to set up the future United States in such a way with the bitter memory of British rule and our reasoning as warning deterrents.