In a post "We must return to Federalist principals" CaptainCourtesy and I engaged in a (courteous) debate re: his perception that I had misused the term "Federalist" in that I had charecterized them as opposing a strong central government.
The "Federal" system written into the Constitution limited the power of the central government and enumerated (thereby limiting them) its powers but not sufficiently to satisfy the fears of what became known as the Anti-Federalists who fought against its ratification. In a series of compromises during the ratification process those fears were sufficiently addressed by the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.
Extract from Wikipedia :
"........ As a result, once the Constitution became operative in 1789, Congress sent a set of twelve amendments to the states. Ten of these amendments were immediately ratified and became known as the Bill of Rights. Thus, while the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in their quest to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were not totally in vain. Anti-Federalists thus became recognized as an influential group among the founding fathers of the United States.
With the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Anti-Federalist movement was exhausted. It was succeeded by the more broadly based Anti-Administration Party, which opposed the fiscal and foreign policies of U.S. President George Washington." In effect the "Anti-Federalists" ceased to exist in 1791.
After the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the "Federalist" system thus created was embraced by the Nation and it is this (post December 15, 1791) "Federalism" to which I was referring.
Beyond that comparing the "strong central government" feared by the Anti-Federalists to what we have today would be as comparing a firecracker to a stick of dynamite. I'd think most Conservatives would be pleased if we could return to the Fed/State power relationship of 1791. It is a return to a state of affairs more closely akin to 1791 I am and was proposing.
When compared to the Anti-Federalists, the Federalists, who obviously won the day in the end, were in favor of much more centralized authority. The AFs basically wanted to maintain the Articles of Confederation, which provided for a much looser affiliation between the states, and highly decentralized power.
In this sense, the names used, Federalist and Anti-Federalists, are kind of misleading.
There's a great book called What the Anti-Federalists Were For that explains the debate quite well.
CC has been overly hung up on semantics and narrow viewpoints lately. Don't know why.
Nice post.
I do think that the "Federalist" system originally created compared to today would be considered more of a confederation.
There needs to be less federalism and more state control.
Here comes Johnny-One-Note again. Those distinctions apply to the period up to the final compromise culminating at the passage of the Bill of Rights.
Beyond that they were all (kind of) Federalists in the general sense and no attempt to change/amend the Constitution, as it pertained to what had been in controversy, was made in the lifetimes of any of the participants in the F/AF fray.
I have my reasons. Some of it has to do with clarity. In this case, since I've been reading a lot about the founding of our country, lately, and the opposing forces towards how the Constitution was developed, I wanted to show the distinction between the two sides. I don't think either side is really well represented, today, though in a vague sort of way, Anti-Federalists would be closer to the Republican or libertarian position, and Federalists would be closer to the Democrat or liberal position. Very general, of course.
I simply can't draw parallels between The Founders and today's pols except to say they are both human, as I would say Golden Labs and roaches are both living things.
I do not think the AFs would have in any way opposed our involvement in WW2 or the creation of the military necessary to win it. if there was ever a necessary war, one that threatened the very existence of the US, it was WW2.I'll reply more in depth tomorrow when I'm fully up to par.
But Anti-Federalists would have opposed our massive military.
Without our massive military system we would have had our asses handed to us during WWI and WWII.
I have my reasons. Some of it has to do with clarity. In this case, since I've been reading a lot about the founding of our country, lately, and the opposing forces towards how the Constitution was developed, I wanted to show the distinction between the two sides. I don't think either side is really well represented, today, though in a vague sort of way, Anti-Federalists would be closer to the Republican or libertarian position, and Federalists would be closer to the Democrat or liberal position. Very general, of course.
This is more of what the anti-federalists wanted. Federalists would have wanted a bit more of what we have today. Of course, if we are discussing a Federalist system, it is a bit more of a compromise.
I prefer the opposite.
True... but which is which?I'd also add that neither moden party is anti-federalist in leaning. The modern parties are Hamiltonian and Hamiltonian light.
True... but which is which?
I have my reasons. Some of it has to do with clarity. In this case, since I've been reading a lot about the founding of our country, lately, and the opposing forces towards how the Constitution was developed, I wanted to show the distinction between the two sides. I don't think either side is really well represented, today, though in a vague sort of way, Anti-Federalists would be closer to the Republican or libertarian position, and Federalists would be closer to the Democrat or liberal position. Very general, of course.
I do not think the AFs would have in any way opposed our involvement in WW2 or the creation of the military necessary to win it. if there was ever a necessary war, one that threatened the very existence of the US, it was WW2.
The worries of the AFs have certainly been borne out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?