None_Provided
“Democracy Restrained: The Great Threat of the Constitution”The fundamental point of contention between the Federalists and anti-Federalists in their debates over ratification of the Constitution surrounded the question of what powers were necessary in order to insure the security of the nation as a whole. The federalists, of course, believed that a strong central government was necessary, for reasons of national security and economic prosperity. The anti-Federalists were strongly opposed to the centralization of power, rather, they were concerned with retaining the sovereignty of the states and, in turn, their secured political freedom. Three issues were the cause of great apprehension to the anti-Federalists upon reading the proposed Constitution – the size of the new nation, the problem of political representation and the disconcerting concentration of governmental powers. In interpreting the Constitution, the anti-Federalists believed that because of these key issues and how they were dealt with in the new government, the!ir freedom was seriously at risk. Their fear and distrust of the new government was focused on the relatively few individuals who, under the new government, would hold the political
Then governor of New York, George Clinton, offers a helpful analogy to describe the lessening of power and representative effectiveness as the political territory spreads. It is this last issue that seemed to be of greatest concern to the anti-Federalists, and logically so, because all other powers and laws prescribed by the Constitution were to be interpreted and executed by these men. Throughout the anti-Federalist papers, there is a sense of class antagonism between the common man and the rich, aristocratic politicians who were called to represent and serve the country. The people wanted democracy, the powers that formed the new government feared democracy. The Senate also possessed the power, described in Article II, section 2, of “advice and consent,” requiring Presidential cabinet positions, Supreme! Court nominations and treaties to be ratified by that branch of the Congress. What the Constitution created was a political order that made it difficult for people to come together through common interests by making communication and concerted action difficult. Madison was a vigorous opponent of pure democracy who feared that the uneducated masses would tyrannize the minority (a minority of which he was included) with their majority rule if given any significant amount of democratic powers. ” The correlation between the potential abuse of power and the rich, intellectual and aristocratic class of Americans was a great reason behind the suspicious perception of government on the part of the anti-Federalists. What was not included in the Constitution, a bill of rights, possibly held more significance to the critics of the Constitution than what was actually included. The Federalists believed that whatever power was necessary and proper could be used to secure the union, whereas, the anti-Federalists believed in the democratic principle of the consent of the governed. 10, Madison describes the “dangerous vice” of political factions resulting from a government terrorized by an over-bearing majority (Kammen 145). Would aristocrats voluntarily abandon their interests for the sake of the unseen masses? ! This was viewed as highly unlikely by the anti-Federalist, “A Farmer and Planter,” as he warned, “Aristocracy…is therein concealed…to entrap a free people…Observe well the rich men who are to be your only rulers, lords and masters in future…Does not riches beget power, and power, oppression and tyranny ?” The issue of the size of the new nation, in terms of proper representation, was of prime importance to the anti-Federalists, in their arguments against the undemocratic nature of the Constitution. What history told these men, who so passionately wrote against the ratification of the proposed Constitution, was that unchecked power in the hands of a few inevitably leads to a corrupt and oppressive form of government. " Equally as significant as the powers at the disposal of the Congress, stands the issues of how these officials are selected, and how representative of the interests and will of the people they would be. Probably the most important event that broke the camel’s back regarding the popular threat to property was Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts, where farmers, desiring land and protection against hostile Indian tribes, lead a bloody rebellion in order to gain property.
Common topics in this essay:
Threat Constitution”,
Constitutional Convention,
Madison Parallels,
Senate Representatives,
No10 Madison,
Constitution Article,
Monesquieu Brutus,
Nonetheless Madison’s,
Supreme Court,
George Clinton,
political power,
anti-federalists believed,
power people,
form government,
concern anti-federalists,
pure democracy,
political factions,
bill rights,
proposed constitution,
central government,
issue concern anti-federalists,
strong central government,
undemocratic nature constitution,
oppressive form government,
potential abuse power,
|
Acceptance Essays
