Sociology

THESIS STATEMENT
Ratifying an important document such as the constitution requires that the  parties involved both come to an agreement on issues such as liberty and union bearing in mind that the citizens are the ones who bear the consequences.

INTRODUCTION
Federalists belong to the Federalist Party, which was formed by Alexander Hamilton in 1789 till the year 1801 although it is believed that it survived till 181620. This party existed in a period that is now referred to as the Federalist Era that is characterized by the coming up of political parties but the most important event that crowns this era was the adoption and ratification of the United States Constitution. The federalists who played a key role in the creation of the Constitution were mainly supported by businessmen, Episcopalians and Congregationalists and they believed in forming one centralized government to replace the weak one that was in effect.

Anti-federalists or republicans as they were known were those who opposed the federalists view. As much as they supported the constitution, they believed that it deserved to have a Bill of Rights. Within the anti-federalists, there were those that opposed the constitution as they considered it a threat to their liberties. They were also opposed to the suggestion of having one central government, which would resort to the loss of stature for individual states. According to them, the federalists had come into power illegally and giving into one central government would bestow on them executive powers that would undermine the sovereignty of individual states. One of the most outstanding anti-federalists was Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States of America. The anti-federalists were composed of traders, farmers and local politicians.

A bone of contention between these two parties was on their view of liberty and union. The constitution according to Article VII required that for it to be ratified after its signing the consent of nine special state conventions had to be sought otherwise those who would opt not to ratify it would be considered as separate countries since they would typically be out of the Union. The local politicians who belonged to the anti federalist group were afraid of losing their political stature and liberty should the constitution be passed and individual state powers handed to the government. This is why the ratification process proved to be very difficult and uncertain because of this group opposed to the one government system. Great supporters of the constitution included federalists such as Benjamin Franklin (Franklin     127) and George Washington.

The federalists and the anti federalists differed on many issues but the main issue was on the Constitution and how much it would bring about change to the norms that had previously existed. Of particular concern was how the Constitution would affect liberty and Union in addressing or not addressing some issues. These issues include the debate over the articles of confederation whereby the federalists felt that the Articles of Confederation were lacking in their capacity for the fulfillment of a better America therefore it was necessary to have a new constitution while the anti-federalists believed that they could be amended. Another issue was on the Bill of Rights that the constitution did not cater for and for which the anti federalists felt was reason enough not to ratify the constitution. This paper looks into some of these issues including those debating on the limits to the powers of the government by considering the views of each side and the reasons why each side felt that they were justified to stand by their view.

Contrasting federalists and anti-federalists view on
Liberty and union
According to the federalists, the Articles of Confederation were inadequate and therefore there was the need for a consolidated government as was proposed by the constitution. This government in their view was going to prove to be more beneficial economically as compared to the individual states. This was because rather than view the society as being composed of farmers as did the anti-federalists, they were open to the view of having different interests and of which none would be dominant so that they could foster both economic and social changes as steps to transform America. This was one of the reasons that the federalists considered to necessitate the union.

Issues relating to a central government and limits of power
The doctrines of the federalists are compiled into a document referred to as The Federalist Papers signed under the pseudonym Publius, which are complications of essays by Alexander Hamilton, John Ray and James Madison. They told of the advantages of having Union between the states, the importance of having a central and federal government and detailed the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. The papers also came to the defense of the democracy of the constitution they were proposing. In their view, liberty and order in the country would only come about through having a federal government. This would ensure that threats such as invasion by foreigners and civil wars would be abated compared to if they remained as separate states, which to them was viewed as a weak union.

The question on whether the government would protect its citizens liberties is addressed by James Madison in The Federalist Papers, number 10. According to him a faction which is,
a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse or passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community would be destructive to a popular government. He therefore proposed methods of curing the mischief s of faction which would entail removing its causes and controlling its effects. (Madison     10).

Removing the causes of faction would entail the destruction of liberties or giving to each and every citizen the same opinions, the same passions and the same interests.  Madison was in favor of a republican government whereby those that are elected by the people get to make the decisions. He therefore did not want to consider the second method of solving the faction problem as it entailed granting power to the people. Liberty according to him would result in formations of different opinions. The first method of solving the faction problem was also quite difficult to do since liberty is to faction what air is to fire. (Madison     10). By this, he was implying that as much we would like to destroy liberty we could not because it plays a major factor in political circles. Therefore, the only way to cure this faction problem was by controlling its effects.

In another argument in support of the Union as concerning liberty, having one federal government could prove to be better and not act as a hindrance to liberty as considered by the anti-federalists. This would be because the large republic would aggravate the ability of a single faction in advancing its own wellbeing ahead of those of the other citizens. To the federalists, having the government delegating the citizens liberties was far better than giving the people the power to do so.

On the other hand, the anti-federalists felt that the federalists were exaggerating the countries problems so that they could push for a new constitution. To crown this they felt that the conditions under which the Constitution Framers had met were wanting in that they violated what was provided for in the Articles of Confederation concerning the selection means for the Constitution. This could be the reason that they felt the federalists wanted to do away with the Articles of Confederation. The anti-federalists considered the introduction of a new Constitution, which would result in the formation of a new and experimental federal government as being risky. To them centralizing power was equated to tyranny and going against the goals of the American Revolution which stress on the virtue of local rule.

The anti federalists also did not support the economic outlook that the federalists proposed for the country and instead they sort to support having a government that was underpinned by agrarian practices. This government would entail landowners participating in politics. Thomas Jefferson who supported the Constitution to some level although he did not fully associate with the federalists was one of those who supported this idea as he considered democratic freedom easier to nurture in an agrarian society compared to the rapid urbanization and centralization of power that would eventually breed tyranny. This is because the anti federalists felt that the Constitution awarded the president and central government too much power at the expense of the state governments.

The anti-federalists felt that having a federal government would impose on the liberty of the citizens. The Centinel in the Anti Federalist Papers number 1 argues that allowing a federal government to operate would entail the citizens surrendering their basic privileges. He goes on further to assert that the, present frame of government, secures to you a right to hold yourselves, houses, papers and possessions free from search and seizure and therefore warrants granted without oaths or affirmations first made, affording sufficient foundation for them, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search your houses or seize your persons or property, not particularly described in such warrant, shall not be granted. (Centinel     1).

He was out to prove to the people that choosing to have a central government would literally rob the people of the liberty to practice what they wanted such as having the freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

For the anti-federalists, their views on what type of government they wanted as a substitute to the one proposed in the constitution were varied in as much as they tended to agree in their opposition of the constitution. They were those that felt that amending the Articles of Confederation was enough whereas some wanted the Union divided up and re formed into different confederacies. Brutus, an anti federalist felt that reducing the confederate states into one would prove to be difficult when it came to matters concerning efficiency. He states that in a republic of such vast extent as the United-States the legislature cannot attend to the various concerns and wants of its different parts. (Brutus     1, 3-5). The federalists and anti federalists therefore differ concerning the means to limit government where by the federalists feel that the government should have the power to make decisions for its citizens without necessarily having their consent while the anti federalists feel that this is imposing on the peoples liberty. They felt that the government should be limited in this power and state powers recognized.

Issues concerning the Bill of Rights
What the anti-federalists feared most was the power the constitution would bestow upon the president and the fact that it did not have a Bill of Rights to protect the people and the parliament against these power. The idea to have a Bill of Rights stemmed from Britains Bill of Rights which was put in place to protect its citizens against the excessive powers of the king. They also felt that passing the Constitution would end the self-rule that the states enjoyed. The federalists however felt there was no need to have a bill of rights because the separation of the powers into three independent branches took care of the protection of the peoples rights. They also felt it was better to list no rights at all because there were too many to list down and there was the chance that it would be difficult to prevent the government from violating those that were not listed.

The debate as regards to the principles of the Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence was authored by Thomas Jefferson in promotion of republicanism ideals in the United States in the year 1776. Also included in the Committee of Five is Benjamin Franklin. The Committee of Five consisted of those that drafted the Declaration. The principles of the Declaration of Independence are taken to be what Abraham Lincoln considered the sentiments of the Declaration of Independence.

One of the sentiments states that people have a right to self-government which entails the right to arms by which tyranny can be resisted and for the establishment of a new government when necessary(Jefferson    136 ). Therefore, the anti-federalists lack of support for proposed the federal government, which they saw as a precursor to tyranny, could be considered as reflecting the Declarations principles rather than departing from it. On the other hand, the last line supports the federalists need for a new government since they considered it necessary to have a new government because the Articles of Confederation were weak.

Another principle is that which calls for free speech and free press which the Declaration of Independence considers as requirements for the practice of responsible liberty. According to the Centinel, he felt that this right would be taken away should the federal government come into the picture. The principle goes on further to assert that these are necessary if people are to govern themselves according to the laws of nature and the creator (Jefferson    136). The federalists could have departed from this principle by advocating for a republican approach that takes power away from the people and delegates it to a centralized power.

Another principle gives men the right to form their own governments, also protect these rights, and defend the governments that they form.  The federalists therefore side with this principle in that they did have a right to form a government, which they felt suited them. To some level, the two opposing sides may have each departed or reflected the Principles of Declaration.

CONCLUSION
The federalists and anti federalists must have had the interests of the citizens at heart when voicing their concerns about the proper route to take in the ratification of the Constitution. The federalists may have felt that by forming one government they were trying to strengthen the country through unity. On the other hand the federalists may have felt that by having one central government, all the peoples needs could not have been properly addressed.  Yes the thought of unity is a good idea but if it takes away the privilege of catering for the needs of people aptly, it ceases to be a good suggestion.
Concerning the Bill of Right, the federalists were justified in saying that one can never satisfy the rights of every one but on the other hand the anti federalists were considerate to the people in advocating for a bill that protects them from excessive presidential powers. When it all comes down, it appears the anti federalists had a stronger case against the federalists.