American Revolution: Forum Questions, Coursework Example

What were the origins of the Federalist movement, and why did it gain such power so quickly and easily? 

The origins of the Federalist movement can be traced back to the discontent surrounding the Articles of Confederation. Federalists were frustrated by the limits placed on the government and argued that only a strong central authority could fix the debt crisis produced by the American Revolution. This position was strengthened when violence erupted during Shay’s Rebellion and the central government could not raise an army to quash the unrest (Formisano, 2001).

How was it that Federalists came to dominate the process which produced the new Constitution?

The Federalists dominated the deliberations over the Constitution as the Anti-Federalists lacked the persuasiveness and organizational skills of their opponents. Persuasive arguments put forward in The Federalist Papers helped to sway public opinion regarding the need to pass a Constitution with a strong central authority (Chambers, 1972).

How did that Constitution reflect the values and ideas that the Federalists espoused? 

The Constitution reflects Federalist principles as it establishes a strong central authority that would coordinate economic, military and diplomatic action between the states. This supra-state authority emerged out of the Federalist’s disdain for the weak Articles of Confederation which left significant authority with individual states and therefore weakened cohesive action (Sharp, 1993).

The Constitution itself is frequently seen by Americans primarily as a means of securing the rights and liberties of the citizens. Is that the case? 

Contrary to popular understanding, the Constitution itself is not the mechanism by which individual rights are protected. In fact, it was only after significant debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists that a compromise was reached in which the Bills of Rights (the first ten amendmentnts) were added to the Constitution which delineate individual rights (Wood, 2009).

What was in fact the process by which those protections were added to the Constitution, and why were they not in the original document? 

The process by which the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution was a debate between the two political factions. Passage of the document was only guaranteed when the Federalists promised to add these protections to the Constitution. Critics of the Bill of Rights, such as Hamilton, argued that rather than protecting liberty by delineating specific rights the Bill of Rights only made it clear where the government could act without constraint (Formisano, 2001).

From the perspective of the Founders, what was the purpose of the Constitution? Was it effective in securing those goals? Why or why not?

I would argue that this is a fatuous question. If anything the debate around the writing and passage of the Constitution makes it clear that there was no single “Founder” perspective. The entire complex process involved significant horse trading and the final product was a compromise between Federalist and Anti-Federalist factions. I would argue though that the final product was an effective amalgamation of both sides’ goals. The government which emerged has enough central authority to tackle the debt crisis and manage affairs of state which not tyrannically trampling on individual liberty and freedoms (Wood, 2009).

The three branch system of government contained in the Constitution is usually perceived as being one of “checks and balances” to keep the federal government from falling under the control of a single element. Was that in fact its purpose? What other reasons might the federalists have had for organizing the government in that fashion?

The fact is that there was a very limited “checks and balances” system in the original Constitution. Though the Executive and Legislative branches had mutual oversight and responsibilities, it was only in the wake of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and the emergence of judicial review that all three government branches became co-equal and able to check each other’s power if used excessively. The limited checks and balance system that does exist in the Constitution was implemented by Federalists who feared the power of mob rule as witnessed during Shay’s Rebellion. Therefore, institutions like the Executive Veto, the not popularly elected Senate and the Electoral College were seen as means to check the majority (Wood, 2009).

The federalists were the dominant political influence in the early republic, and apparently very successful. Why then did a significant organized opposition to they appear relatively quickly? Who led this opposition, and why was it able to make gains against the federalists? What were the goals of the federalists and this new opposition, the “democratic republicans”? What policies did each group pursue, and why? What were some of the most significant actions of each group? 

A significant opposition emerged to the Federalist Party as many stakeholders in the new Republic resisted the cosmopolitan mercantilist principles articulated by Adams and Hamilton. This opposition emerged from the anti-Federalists during the Constitutional debate period and became the Democratic-Republican Party led by Jefferson. This new party was successful as it embodied the fears of regional agricultural elements regarding excessive federal power in relation to individual liberty. Furthermore, the new party stressed that the national debt would bankrupt small farmers and working class people. The most significant actions of the Federalists can be seen in the creation of a national navy, the expansion of federal power in the Alien and Sedition Acts and the collection of national taxes while the Demoractic-Republicans’s accomplishments were the defeat of a national bank and the repeal of the excessive federal power embodied in the Alien and Sedition Acts (Sharp, 1993).

How did this arrangement evolve into the two party system that still exists today? Why was the success of that two party system, and in particular, the successful election of a Republican candidate, Thomas Jefferson, as president, so crucial to the survival of the new republic?

The arrangement between Federalist and anti-Federalist parties evolved into the two-party system over decades and only into the modern system following the Civil War. The fact that the government was stable enough to peacefully pass between parties as evidenced by the election of 1800 was crucial to the Republic’s long-term survival. This two-party dynamic has been both a source of stability and tension in the nation’s history. While the two party political system laid the groundwork for the eventual violence of the Civil War it has also provided a source of remarkable structural stability in contrast to other nations in which multiple competing parties are required to form coalitions to remain in power (Chambers, 1972).

References

Chambers, W. The First Party System: Federalists and Republicans. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1972.

Formisano, R.P. “State Development in the Early Republic,” in B. Shafer and A. Badger, eds. Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775–2000. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 2001, pp. 7–35.

Sharp, J.R. American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis. New Haven, CT” Yale University Press, 1993.

Wood, G.S. Empire of Liberty: A history of the Early Republic, 1789-1815. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.