At the end of the revolutionary war, the American colonists were free from the British domination and sought to determine the kind of government that could serve the country well. The separate states had been connected initially by the Articles of Confederation. However, this law did not give the central government any power as it vested most of the authority to state and local government. Therefore, a new document had to be drafted so that it could ensure the safety of Americans (Lim, 2014). The constitution brought two separate groups that consisted of the Federalist and anti-Federalist.
The striking similarity between these groups is that they agreed that there was abuse of power. They had experienced what had happened during the war, especially the negative impact of power. They were aware of how power corrupts and wanted a government that would ensure a just republic. However, sharp differences defined these two groups as they disagreed on several provisions during the Philadelphia Convention (Lim, 2014). Imperatively, the Federalists were keen on adopting the Constitution while the anti-federalist opposed it, demanding that some of its provisions must be amended before it could be ratified.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The anti-federalists wanted a weak Federal government that could serve the state government on matters relating to defense and international diplomacy because a majority of the initial thirteen states had witnessed serious challenges in formulation of international policies and dealing with internal rebellion (Lim, 2014). Conversely, the Federalists favored a strong central government that would exercise its authority directly and not through the state governments. Secondly, the anti-federalists opposed the ratification of the constitution because they believed that it violated the fundamental rights of an individual (Lim, 2014). Effectively, the final Constitution embraced their amendments when the Congress established a bill of rights to ensure that the liberties that the anti-federalists thought the document had violated or not addressed.
The other major difference between these groups was the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. The Federalists wanted the court to have original jurisdiction as opposed to the other group or faction that wanted the state courts to hear the suits (Lim, 2014). They opined that such litigations originate from the states and every state should have the legal right to hear these cases before the U.S Supreme Court. The Federalists wanted the federal government to have the power to collect taxes directly from the people while the anti-federalists wanted the federal government to get money from the state governments. The Federalists argued that without the power to raise taxes, the U.S federal government could not effectively offer defense to the states and formulate an efficient diplomatic policy. Again, the government could not repay its international debts if it could not have this power.
The factions also differed on the issue of a commercial policy for the entire country. The Federalists favored one commercial policy for the entire nation while the anti-federalists sought for a flexible commercial policy framework for the entire country (Lim, 2014). They argued that such differentiated policies would meet the needs of the people in different parts of the country as opposed to one policy that may serve the interests of few business and commercial enterprises at the expense of the many Americans. They opined that such policy would rather most people into servitude (Lim, 2014). Finally, the anti-federalists opposed the federal government from having the power federalize state militias.
Conclusion
It is factual that these two factions opposed one another based on the issues they raised and not based on their social and economic status in the society.
Reference
Lim, E. (2014). Political Thought, Political Development, and America’s Two Foundings. American Political Thought , Vol.3, No.1, pp.146-156.
