Federalist v. Centinel

            The ratification of the Constitution relied on whether the voters believed the proposed government would operate in a just and fair manner. In order to help the people completely understand the document, the Federalist papers and the Centinel letters, which both tried to explain the suggested government in manner helpful to their cause, were published for the voters to read. Both documents discuss, for the most part, the same issues, but the viewpoints are vastly different. The Federalists authored the Federalist papers to gain support for the Constitution. Likewise, the Anti-Federalists listed their concerns in the Centinel letters. Both parties had a fear for their personal rights, but they argued about whether the new government addressed those issues.

The papers Federalist #10 and Federalist #51, examples of the Federalist views, propose arguments for the new government displaying the purpose for a representative republic and the separation of powers, respectively. Federalist #10 explains why the writers of the Constitution chose the Republic form of government. The main purpose of this form of government was to limit the powers of “factions”. These “factions” were groups of people with similar ideals and goals who were apt to violate the rights of their fellow citizens to achieve their own goals. The argument was given that the abusive control that the groups had over the policies of government had brought the collapse of many democratic governments. So, the view was that the Constitution had to create a government that either eliminated or controlled the potential abuses that the majority would have over a minority. The only system, as seen by the Federalists, was one of a representative government that controlled the consequences of the group’s actions. The explanation for this course is that since the representatives would be elected by a large variety of people, there would be less chance for the evil to be elected. The politicians would be elected based on appeal to the constituents. Another issue presented, is that no man can be truly unbiased in his views. Men are selfish creatures that always seek to obtain their own individual goals at the sacrifice of the masses. The fact that the people would have a final check on their representatives would cause the representative to adhere to the wishes of his constituency. The Federalists established this fact to ensure that the people would still have a voice in the government system, even though it was not a direct democracy. The implications were that the elected officials would be more interested in providing for the public good in order to continue to have tenure in their office and would be less apt to move for personal fulfillment. Thus, the rights and the interests of the minority, and the people in general would be protected. Whether this fact is true would be up to the public, and they would vote for ratification accordingly. Federalist #51, along the same lines of protecting the people’s rights, claims that the separation of powers between the branches of government keeps one branch from controlling the others. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” In other words, if one branch of government wanted to gain more power for itself, the other two branches must stop the movement to protect their own powers. Another point made was that the proposed government has a double blind against one body having too much power. It was presented that the power in the government system was first divided between federal and state government, and then into separate branches. Hence, no one branch of either government would have a large amount of power. In summary, Federalist papers gave an opinion of the proposed government that showed it to not be tyrannical. The view was that by having representatives of the people, a group of people with interests detrimental to the society as whole would not have the power to inflict such injustices, and that the separation of powers between branches of government would protect the rights of the citizens.

            The Centinel letters were written to contradict the points presented by the Federalists. Centinel #1 was an example of the Anti-Federalist views of the proposed government, which were of great discourse. Centinel #1 makes several arguments refuting that the rights of the citizens will be protected. The British government, which is supposedly based on the same theories as the Constitution, was an example of how the government will not work. The theory of separation of powers was great in theory, but in practice, it failed to keep the government balanced. The Anti-Federalists state that, feeding off of the Federalist theory that all men will pursue their own ambitions, the government will not be able to benefit the public even in a republic. The men that are in office and in charge will do whatever they want in order to benefit themselves, no matter if they upset their constituents or not. But the Anti-Federalists did not hold the new government to be balanced anyway. The author held that the proposed government “would be in practice a permanent aristocracy”. They stated that the legislative branch would have much more power than the other branches. They had to approve all appointments, all the justices of the Supreme Court, and all treaties. The legislature also had the power to tax and raise a standing army to enforce that tax. The legislators could have had the power to control when, where, and how they were elected. They could strong-arm the people by having an army take their money away, and they could be in office permanently by keeping the elections controlled in such a way that they are not voted out of office. Hence, the congressmen would become an aristocracy above the rest of the American public. The Anti-Federalists claimed that the state governments would become unneeded under the new government. One such statement was that the Supreme Court, whose jurisdiction was considered vague, would essentially “supercede” the state courts, rendering any decision made by them obsolete. The Centinel letter also made the claim that there was no guarantee to freedom of speech, religion, or press or the right to a trial by jury. These were legitimate claims, as there was no Bill of Rights in the Constitution in its original form. Basically, the Anti-Federalists were worried about their individual rights. They saw no mention of the rights of the people in the document, and they were concerned that the new federal government would be tyrannical. The state governments and justice system would be, supposedly, rendered obsolete by the all-powerful federal legislature, who would be able to enact anything they saw fit.

            The two sets of papers gave very contrasting views on the Constitution, as was expected, but the arguments made were based on a concern for the rights of the governed. Any debate will have two opposing camps, in this case, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. One group believed the new government would be able to protect the rights of the people, while the other saw nothing that would stop the government from trampling all over the people. The only real similarity between the differing views was the arguments were based on the protection of rights. The idea was the same, but the opinions were vastly different.

            The two sets of documents, the Federalist papers, and the Centinel letters, had very different views on the same issue. The two different parties, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, interpreted the Constitution in a way to support the cause for ratification or rejection, respectively. The Federalists saw the new government in a way that would guarantee the rights of the governed. The Anti-Federalists saw it in such a manner that would make no such guarantee. The two sides were both describing the same topic and the same document, and yet there interpretations were at completely different ends of the spectrum.