Posted on 01/08/2008 6:58:09 AM PST by Bodhi1
Fred Thompson likes to refer to himself as a federalist. He writes:
Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism — that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws. One state might try one welfare reform approach, for example. Another state might try another approach. One would work and the other would not.
He is right, but that doesn’t make him a Federalist. When the Constitution was being written, the Federalists were the big government types.
(Excerpt) Read more at allamericanblogger.com ...
The statement of an historical moron.
The writer is an idiot.
Hardly. They certainly wanted a bigger central government than what we had under the Articles of Confederation, but that does not make them "big government" types in the modern sense of the phrase.
If you knew history, you wouldb’t be so quick to judge.
All of the original Constitutional founders were for big governemnt, by the standards of Amercia in their day.
Later, under the Federalist Party, they were also for a big government by that day’s standards. People like Hamilton and Clay fought against people like Jefferson and Jackson.
Of course, every generation has a different definition of federalism, so he’s wrong there.
The statement was stupid on its face.
All of the original Constitutional founders were for big governemnt, by the standards of Amercia in their day.
Wrong.
Later, under the Federalist Party, they were also for a big government by that day’s standards.
Wrong again.
People like Hamilton and Clay fought against people like Jefferson and Jackson.
Hamilton was hardly an advocate of big government and Jackson threatened to send in troops against the nullificationists while he multiplied the national debt by a factor of ten.
You seem to equate support for a National Bank as being synonymous with support of "big government." One has nothing to do with the other.
The fundamental argument of the Federalists were that a federal government would reduce the size of government and improve its effectiveness by eliminating the need for elaborate state duty and security measures.
The first few numbers of The Federalist make this quite clear.
The myth that the early advocates of the internally contradictory notion of "States' rights" were for smaller government is ridiculous.
What they wanted was for every state to reduplicate the functions of and obstruct the powers of the federal government. No anti-Federalist ever argued that rejecting the Constitution would reduce the size and expense of government administration.
In 1988, I wrote the Introduction to the facsimile reprint of Robert Yates' Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention to Form the US Constitution. Yates was the leading opponent to the Virginia Plan in the Philadelphia Convention.
When it was clear that he could not defeat the Virginia Plan in Philadelphia, he returned to New York with his associate, John Lansing. That left Alexander Hamilton as the only delegate from New York. That's why NY made no further votes in the Convention after 10 July, when Yates and Lansing left.
Congressman Billybob
To understand the difference between a Federalist and an anti-Federalist one must go back to the founding of our constitution. There were those who wanted a strong central government to rule over all the states. These were the Federalists. They felt is was the best way to ensure all states followed the same rules and gave equally to the growing country. They felt the Articles of the Confederation left the United States weak and unprotected. The Federalists were right in some regards, but they were countered by the anti-Federalists who feared the tyranny of the majority. They believed that the states were in the best position to decide what is best for them and there should be as little federal interference as possible in the day-to-day running of the state. They remembered that America was founded partially out of the fear of a strong central government.Source. I don't think the author meant Federalists were advocating the mess we have now, but that when the term Federalist was used during the creation of the Constitution, they were the big government types. I think that is why he wrote, "When the Constitution was being written..." The definition of Federalist then and Federalist now maybe changed.
Did you even read the article?
They were advocating the creation of a federal government, not a large one or a central one.
The Federalist lays out in detail why the Federalists believed a confederate - as opposed to a federal - system would lead to a larger and more intrusive government.
They were vigorous critics of centralized government as well - but centralized goverment didn't really have many defenders then.
And it makes all kinds of fraudulent claims of the same sort that I first blasted.
The Federalists operated in an intellectual climate where they saw three versions of government authority: the confederated, in which the states have all authority and the national government is merely an agent of the states; the federal, in which the national government and the states share authority each retaining power in its own sphere; and the consolidated, in which the national government has all authority and the states are merely its agents.
A federalist believes that the federal government should exercise its constitutional powers and that the states should exercise their constitutional powers.
And the term "states' rights" is oxymoronic: persons have rights, but states do not have rights. They have powers.
They were advocating the creation of a federal government, not a large one or a central one.But this says:
The Federalists wanted a strong central government and had little interest in states' rights. The new party advocated a loose interpretation of the United States Constitution based on the "Necessary-and-proper clause" also known as the Elastic Clause that Hamilton used against Jefferson in arguments over the issue of a national bank. It believed that rule by a well-educated elite would serve all interests, and appealed to merchants, bankers, lawyers, editors, landowners, and industrialists; one of John Jay's favorite maxims was, "The people who own the country ought to govern it".[1] Its most powerful leader was Hamilton and his hero was George Washington.And this says:
The Federalists, as a rule, were advocates of a strong central government. They were somewhat pessimistic about human nature and believed that the government must resist the passions of the general public. One of the government's prime functions was to maintain order. The Federalists tended to place their faith in the talents of a small governing elite.and this says:
U.S. national political party, which advocated a strong central governmentand this says:
The Federalists were conservatives; they favored a strong centralized government,and this says:
They favored a strong central government, a large peacetime army and navy, and a stable financial system.So it seems, according to history, that the Federalists favored a strong, central government. The Antifederalists were opposed to that idea because they saw it as a threat to state's rights/powers/authority, whatever you want to call it.
They were vigorous critics of centralized government as well - but centralized goverment didn't really have many defenders then.Aside from all the Federalists, you mean.
If the Federalists were agitating for centralized government, they wouldn't have advocated a Constitution that placed so much power in the hands of individual states. They would simply have advocated the centralization of all government functions and made the states into mere adminsitrative divisions governed directly by the central government by means of appointed governors, as was the case under the government that preceded them.
Did they want a strong government? Of course. Who wants a weak government?
A strong government does not need to be centralized - it can be federal.
A strong government does not need to be big, either.
A strong government does not need to be centralized - it can be federal.Right. Then why did the Constitution create this:
The District of Columbia, founded on July 16, 1790, is a federal district as specified by the United States Constitution.Or is that source wrong too?
Who wants a weak government?I do. Most of my friends do. We just say the words "limited government" rather than "weak government".
A strong government does not need to be centralized - it can be federal.Federal, by definition, means centralized government. You've just said that the government doesn't need to be centralized - it can be centralized.
It's a good article. End of story. I'm going for coffee.
The biggest issue as the Federalists formed as a party and the Republicans consolidated in opposition was the French Revolution and the push for Revolutionary Central Government. All of the actions of both parties have to be seen in light of where we stood in relation to the forces a large in the world at the time. Understanding the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Marshal Court, the Madison attempts to limit or expand government all have to look at the issues such as Canals, Newspaper vendettas, Debt and British/French movements to see the motivators behind the laws.
The answer should be pretty self-evident - so that federal deliberations could take place on neutral ground rather than on the territory of any one of the individual states.
If the federal government deliberated in in Philadelphia and made a law or an executive decision or a judicial ruling that was favorable to Pennsylvania then every state could protest on grounds of partiality.
So the solution was to either to infinitely rotate the federal government from place to place at great cost and inconvenience, or create a stable, neutral area.
No, the federalists were the party, led by Hamilton, that wanted a stronger central gov’t. But the author is confusing the term federalist as it is applied today with the the long defunct federalist ‘party’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.