The debate of federalists vs anti-federalists defined the major part of American politics and constitution for quite a long time. This essay is going to describe the positions of federalists and anti-federalists on economy, judiciary and suffrage based on the book by Sean Willetz “The Rise of American Democracy: From Jefferson to Lincoln”.Federalists’ point on economy was the encouragement of commerce and manufacturing. They believed in industrializing the nation as they saw the country’s general strength in the development of these branches of economy. Federalists also favored centralized management of economy as a federal organism. They also strove to keep close connection with Britain, including economic ties. The congress is to regulate both foreign and interstate commerce, and also has an extensive power to levy taxes.
Anti-federalists, on the other hand, saw the development of economy with emphasis on agriculture and rural life. They believed that each state should be given the right to develop economy and implement economic policies according to its specific character. In general, this movement stressed the liberty of states to decide their own destiny, which also concerns the economic aspect. The congress should have no power over commerce, therefore, the states should be free to impose their own levies and restrictions on trade with other states and also enter economic agreements with other countries, if they choose to do so. The congress also should have no power to levy general taxes, as each state pays taxes on a voluntary basis.
In judicial field, federalists emphasized the importance of creation of federal courts, which are capped and governed by the Supreme Court. This hierarchy is explained by the belief of federalists in firm order and stability, and just as the nation was to have a strong central government, it was to have a strong judicial branch of power as well.
The anti-federalists opposed centralized judiciary. They believed that creation of federal courts was too restrictive, and instead proposed the freedom of states to resolve their own matters or conflicts with other states. Therefore, all judicial matters are left to the discretion of states, and precedent law cannot become general and can be applied only to the state in question.
The last issue to be discussed here is the points of two rivaling camps on suffrage. The federalists favored universal suffrage, regardless of physical and social differences. They believed that each state should have two representatives, all of whom are centralized and governed. Later, they proposed to have one representative for not more than fifty thousand people; therefore, the number of representatives was to be proportional to the total population of the state.
Unlike them, anti-federalists did not believe in the universal character of voting. They excluded women, slaves and even free blacks from it. The positions of anti-federalists were the strongest in the Southeast, so no wonder that they pushed forward such statements. They also believed that only one representative for each state should be provided, regardless of the size of its population.
