Federalists Vs. Anti-Federalists

In a past post, “An Arboreal Army Fighting For Economic Independence”, I briefly discussed the fundamental differences between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Their views differed on states’ rights, economic policies and The Articles of Confederation. Delving further into these differences, we see the blooming of America’s bipartisanship- the split between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

            The Federalist party, under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton, was mainly comprised of upper class citizens. In contrast, the Anti-Federalist party, led by Thomas Jefferson and his ally, James Madison, consisted of poorly educated, country farmers. These social differences translated into policy differences.

            Anti-Federalists supported the Articles of Confederation- the original document outlining The United States government. The Articles of Confederation created a weak central government with most ruling power given to the states. As the name implies, Anti-Federalists opposed a strong federal government, believing most power should be held by states. To Anti-Federalists, a powerful central government was all too similar to the government they just fought to separate themselves from- the British. They feared establishing federal dominance could threaten the very idea of the democracy they so desired. Jefferson summed up this fear, writing, “It was by the sober sense of our citizens that we were safely and steadily conducted from monarchy to republicanism, and it is by the same agency alone we can be kept from falling back” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Arthur Campbell, 1797) Anti-Federalists also opposed Congressional power to tax. The party advocated for voluntary tax payment by states. They also rejected the idea of federal courts. They had faith in the states’ abilities  to resolve conflict amongst themselves. Anti-Federalists believed mention of God should not be removed from government documents.

            At the other end of the spectrum, Federalists opposed the Articles of Confederation, believing the document was too weak to be successful. In order for our country to flourish, according to the Federalists, the national government needed to hold the majority of the power. According to Hamilton, the “vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty” (Hamilton,The Federalist Papers). Federalists viewed the states as stubborn and unwilling to cooperate. They saw a Bill of Rights, something the Anti-Federalists strongly fought for, as unnecessary. Since the United States government was based on the “power of the people”, Federalists believed there was no way the national government would encroach on citizen’s individual rights and freedoms. Federalists wished to grant the federal government power to levy taxes and to establish federal courts. They also believed more in separation of church and state.

            It is easy to see how the social makeups of these parties shaped their views on government, power, and policies. The Anti-Federalist party, as I’ve already mentioned, was primarily made up of poor farmers. These individuals were at great risk of being disadvantaged. As in societies today, poorer classes are easier to write off as ignorant and, therefor, unimportant. Jefferson, however,  realized that lack of education does not equate to lack of individual value or ability. He believed, in fact, that these people were the ones who embodied the most important values- a strong work ethic, humbleness, and determination.

This view stemmed from Jefferson’s desire for an agrarian society- a society of “independent farmers untainted by the corrupting influence of Britain” (Wulf, 85) This society, Jefferson believed, faced a dire threat in Hamilton’s financial plans for the nation. Federalists advocated an economy fueled by mercantilism. Under Hamilton, they sought to form a National Bank that Jefferson feared would form a “financial aristocracy” (Wulf, 87) that would benefit the already advantaged. A Federalist society would strengthen class differences by catering the manufacturer and, in turn, disregarding the farmer.