Constitutional Ratification
The Anti-Federalist and Federalist parties’ major argument was toward America’s states and their need to unionize, in order to create a stronger national government without infringement of natural rights. At the Constitutional Convention, Federalism relied on the national government’s offer of credence on state relations, while consolidating its authority to more tactfully engage in foreign policy; whereas Anti-Federalists remained evidentialist, demanding a declarative and enumerated acknowledgment of the guaranteed protection and posterity of civil rights. Constitutionally, America required both contrasting ideologies Federalist and Anti-Federalist to ensure a decentralized and diverse authority that would not harm nor violate the rights of the Colonists. The Constitution would be ratified to represent objective truth in U.S. law and policy, therefore the Federalists rejected the consideration of human rights in the formation of government, as these inherent rights had already been discussed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence over a decade earlier.
Alexander Hamilton, a devoted Federalist, wrote persuasive essays alongside James Madison and John Jay; using the collective name “Publius,” these essays were published in New York Newspapers, and later came to be known as the Federalist Papers. John Adams, a prominent Federalist, did not sign the Constitution despite his support of its ratification due to an international engagement conducting foreign policy. The Federalists saw the formation of a Constitution as an opportunity to secure a nation against foreign invasion, take care of executive duties, and ensure equal prosperity of the States. The Anti-Federalists saw the Constitution as a psychological operation to facilitate British intervention, fearing impeding the purpose of America. As James McClellan and George W. Carey write “[b]etween April and July 1776, some ninety ‘declarations of independence’ were formulated by townships in Massachusetts and counties in New York, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina.12 On April 13, 1776, North Carolina became the first State to instruct its delegates to join other delegates in the Continental Congress in declaring independence. Rhode Island, Virginia, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland followed in rapid succession…few citizens played a direct role in the creation of the first State constitutions.” It had become clear by the nearly ninety declarations of independence written by counties and States that America needed a compromise in order to secure that independence Colonists so eagerly desired. This would require the settlement of both parties, prompting the state of union required to establish a Constitution; despite their inherent differences all of America’s Founding Fathers sought to establish a revolutionary government combining Federalist and Anti-Federalist principles into the Constitution, alongside ten ratified amendments known today as the Bill of Rights.
Thomas Jefferson did not sign the Constitution; he was an ardent Anti-Federalist, who conveniently found himself “out of the country” at work on foreign affairs at the time of the Constitution’s signing. Jefferson’s decision on whether to sign the Constitution was itself a divisive issue; on August 6th, 1795 Anti-Federalist Melancton Smith, provided analysis on the signing of Jay’s Treaty that,“[t]he patriotic Jefferson is blessed by all good americans—He never would have disgraced his country by putting his name to an instrument like the Treaty.” Jefferson’s actions held widespread influence throughout the States, as his name was known to all Colonists at the time. Anti-Federalist writer under the pseudonym, “Federal Farmer,” wrote in 1787 that, “I am sensible, thousands of men in the United States, are disposed to adopt the proposed constitution, though they perceive it to be essentially defective, under an idea that amendments of it, may be obtained when necessary. This is a pernicious idea, it argues a servility of character totally unfit for the support of free government.” The author’s words revealed that although thousands of Anti-Federalists were willing to support an amendable Constitution, they did not concede to the superiority of Federalism, seeking a Bill of Rights with authority to update the Constitution to the modern needs of the people, without physical revision. This conflict between political ideologies of Federalism and Anti-Federalism has led America to become a nation of legislative resilience, whereas the United States of America has the longest Constitution in the history of government (Senate). This was not the first time Jefferson evaded political conflict; in August 1774 the First Virginia Convention was held in Williamsburg, where seven delegates were appointed. These included, “Peyton Randolph, Richard Henry Lee, Edmund Pendleton, Richard Bland, George Washington, and Patrick Henry. Thomas Jefferson was absent from the convention due to illness, and was not chosen, (Kidd, T.S., 89).” Federalism ended with Thomas Jefferson’s Presidential inauguration in 1801, as American politics entered a new era of Jeffersonian democratic-republicans, (White House); whereas Anti-Federalism diminished after the Constitution’s ratification, and a Bill of Rights was secured through the creation of its Amendments.
Modern Federalism and Anti-Federalism have undergone hundreds of years of revision, whose principles are now used to weaponize constituents into political compliance. Anti-Federalist thought remains most consistent with the modern populist generation of constituents, yet is exploited by nefarious Federalist enterprise; this requires the forced appropriation of culture ratified through extreme policy.
Federalism remains an objective truth among Washington’s immoral minority, federal agencies, and their special-interest counterparts. Modern Federalists know that without Anti-Federalist demand, there can be no legislative aristocracy under the pretext of democracy. Abortion, vaccine compliance, the definition of marriage, youth indoctrination, transhumanism, and pseudo-equity are all components of modern Federalism. As historian James McClellan writes in the Editor’s Introduction to ‘The Federalist,’ that pre-Constitution, “the colonies had already transformed themselves into thirteen constitutional republics, each claiming independence, sovereignty, and statehood. They had progressed to this stage of political development over a two-year period beginning with the creation of the Committees of Correspondence in 1772.” Had a union not been ratified through policy under the Federalist doctrine, the United States of America would likely be devolved to be named “States of America;” this notion proposes enervated foreign policy, a lack of national regulatory oversight, and a disconnected military; had not a federal Constitution been formulated at the Philadelphia Convention, the liberty the American nation has come to expect, may not exist at all.
Anti-Federalist has reemerged in modern culture; today’s self-defined well-meaning defenders of civic social justice proclaim systemic oppression demanding continual systemic reform. The principle of Anti-Federalism has been commandeered by maleficent special interest forces to sway the modern public with divisive beliefs that society lacks some inherent right, or that there exists a radical discriminative hierarchy leading to generational oppression. Today there has been a reignition of Anti-Federalism in the implementation of Artificial Intelligence; the White House has already proposed a Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. The proposal titled, “Making Automated Systems Work for the American People,” appropriates the means of omnipotent implementation throughout all sectors of society; ubiquitous mechanic contraptions deemed ‘sentient,’ appropriates pervasive surveillance. The intentions of today’s political provocateurs are in the promotion of fear and division, not attaining prophetic liberty; as represented in the writings of Colonists. By furthering the rights of American citizens, the national government has begun legislating the boundaries of modern freedoms, defining personal privacy, and associating these attributes to a specific class of people; unlike the Founder's original intent of the Constitution and its amendment process.
Federalism and Anti-Federalism both foundationally commenced from a Christian worldview, and played instrumental roles in the construct of America’s Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with the entire amendment process; today these principles remain obstructed by secular humanism. Their modern resurgence poses a grave threat to American society; legislating public adherence to an absolute political ideology abandons civic virtue and collective unity. As Cal Thomas writes in the preface to Marvin Olasky’s book ‘Fighting for Liberty and Virtue,’ “When ancient Israel was obedient to the law and the will of God, they generally enjoyed righteous leadership. But when they pursued their own ways and turned their backs on God, they got terrible leadership, not only to punish them but to bring them to repentance and restoration. In our day we have confused the words “values” and “virtue,”…[g]overnment cannot give us virtue. (Olasky, M., xiii). Christians possess an inherent duty to perceive all human beings to be made in the image of God, known as “Imago Dei,” (Gen 1:27); as all of humanity derives from one blood (Acts 17:26). Historically both were essential; Anti-Federalists placed rebellion into the American spirit, while Federalism gave America its national power and geopolitical sway in modern global affairs. These factors are essential to the exceptionalism and consistent prosperity of the American nation and its people, through maintaining an Originalist Constitutional perspective in the development of public policy, future civic rights, and engagement in foreign affairs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a greater domestic reliance on legislated rights, as advocated by the Anti-Federalists, will result in a deviation from Constitutional Originalism; the advancement of rights sought after by today’s “Anti-Federalist” activists include ambiguous terms like “greater equality,” “preserving democracy,” and more State appropriated bureaucracies. Once a state of unanimous legislated solitude has been achieved, further revisions can only begin to wedge division in the posterity of national liberty. The continued pursuit of further rights will contribute to the disbalance in civil equal liberties resulting from biased legislative intervention, leading to further crises and societal disparities; this facilitated the need for government welfare and ensured the need for national intervention, ceding power to the modern Federalist agenda to usurp the collective power from the people through initiating division.
–July 31st, 2023
Bibliography
Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James; Jay, John. “The Federalist.” Liberty Fund, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Kidd, T.S. “Patrick Henry.” Basic Books. Kindle Edition.
Olasky, M.N. (1995). “Fighting For Liberty and Virtue.” Wheaton Illinois: Crossway Books.
Senate. (Accessed on August 2nd, 2023). “U.S. Senate: Constitution Day.” https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution-day.htm.
Smith, Melancton. “The Anti-Federalist Writings of the Melancton Smith Circle.” Liberty Fund, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
WhiteHouse. (Accessed on August 2nd, 2023). “Thomas Jefferson.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/thomas-jefferson/.
WhiteHouse (2022) “Blueprint For An AI Bill of Rights: Making Automated Systems Work for the American People.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Blueprint-for-an-AI-Bill-of-Rights.pdf