Final Draft for Essay #3

North Carolina: The Anti-Federalist State

One day a guy who had a deck of cards decided to make a card tower. He began rushing while building the card tower, then realized that if he wasn’t careful; his whole project would come crashing down and he’d end up with a big mess to clean [and then he would have to start all over!]. Knowing this, he slowed down and took his time, and the card tower turned out fine. Taking things slow and steady was the mentality of the North Carolinians. They felt it was risky to rush in the ratification of the Constitution before it was PERFECT [meaning its terms worked for EVERYONE, not just SOME states]. The deck of cards was like the Constitution because they both served as bases that needed to be put together carefully. Any hastiness would not fulfill all necessary supporting features and would build a weak base, therefore risking the whole entire structure. They needed careful planning, thus making a strong base to be a foundation for their new nation. The hasty ratification of the Constitution threatened the longevity of the United States, and thereof North Carolina (and her people). It would have affects on three different levels: national government rights, state rights, and individual rights.

The anti-federalists feared that in ratifying the Constitution, the centralized government would eventually lose their sense of Democracy and turn into a monarchy. This would contradict the initial reason why they succeeded from the British during the Revolution. According to the Constitution, Congress had the power to lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce with other countries, provide punishments and coin money. The anti-federalists were apprehensive of the government and were scared that they could cut off trade with any country at any time and mess up the economy (without any voice of the Americans in that decision). The government rights would then be on the rise while state and citizen rights would slowly be deprived.

The Constitution without a bill of rights would put the states at risk of submission under the new national government. Individualism was a key attribute to have within the states. They didn’t like the idea of having one centralized form of government. They wanted to make sure they would be heard and would have some sort of rights for themselves such as individual states’ rights and laws. Furthermore, they also wanted to make sure their personal and property rights would be protected and guaranteed. Mutually they wanted a bill of rights to protect them, but at the time there wasn’t one. The Americans feared that without a bill of rights to protect them and their rights, they would be at the mercy of the national government and possibly more powerful states. States feared losing their voice in taxation and decisions regarding trade; therefore they shunned themselves away form accepting the constitution.

There was a great chance of limitation to the rights of citizens if the Constitution was ratified. This revolved around distrust between classes. “The Constitution was seen as a plot by the upper class to steal power back from common folk…” [The American Pageant (1)] stated Stanford history professor David M. Kennedy. The majority of people saw the Constitution this way because it gave so much power to the government; which of course, was comprised of people from wealthier classes. Because North Carolina’s population was made up of primarily farmers and people of a more humble class, they were more inclined to fight back. One key concern that these people had was the loss of their rights. Taxation was a subject that was uneasily discussed—according to the Constitution, government would have the right to tax all the states whatever amount they wanted (depending on need and self purposes). To them, this would eventually lead to government tyranny. Many feared that this amount of power would allow the government to tax them heavier (whenever they wanted to): first, to pay off any personal debts, and second, to pay off the war debt. Evidently, if the government were run by wealthier people, they could agree on higher taxation (because they could pay it) but that would mean endless suffering for the farmers and other lower classes. Loss of land would be the conclusion to scenarios such as this (they would have to sell or it would be taken away by force). “… this new document had no guarantees of personal and property rights—for example, a jury trial in federal courts was not guaranteed…” [North Carolina: Through Four Centuries (2)] explained the renowned William S. Powell; leading authority in North Carolina history. The farmers of N.C. saw this as prime time for the Federalists to take away power and rights from others in lower classes (therefore limitation of rights would be a possible rising issue).

Despite obvious cons in the ratification that applied to the North Carolinians, there were certainly pros. The Federalists declared that a strong centralized government was necessary for ascendance to power for the growing nation. It is true that a strong centralized government would generate fear, especially to lower class citizens like many of the North Carolinians. However, having no form government can be as dangerous as a tyrannical one; and possibly causing economic crippling to the farming population of North Carolina. A state such as North Carolina can’t survive in a loose anarchy. It had dependence on internal governmental security as well as dependence on other states (trade). Without a strong centralized government, such security cannot not be assured, which would instantly jeopardize North Carolina’s ability to sell their cash crops, and produce.

This was not a compelling enough argument for the Anti-Federalists in North Carolina, and to them, individual freedoms took presidency over a new government. Perhaps it was too early for the Anti-Federalists, who had just put forth all effort to disown the British government. Of course not all paranoia on the matter could be blamed on fear of a repeated monarchy. What can be said for the North Carolinians is a centralized government could hurt them easier than it could help them, which would deem it an unnecessary risk. The Federalism versus Anti-federalism debate concerned each class of people in a different light. For the majority of North Carolinians, anti-federalism was the most beneficial choice.

[Nash] What am I? Neither a federalist nor an anti-federalist. In this age I think the question is irrelevant. I’m sure that America would be almost exactly the same as it is now had the anti-federalist cause won over that of the federalists, thus I see no reason to favor one or the other. Instead, I ask myself what I would have been if I lived back when I feel it was relevant. The obstacle facing this mindset is a lifetime of inculcation that makes me automatically think “of course federalism was the right way to go.” Surely I can’t base my decision on what I’ve been told, so I have to reconsider anti-federalism. From what I gather about anti-federalism, their reasoning for not wanting to ratify didn’t have relations with not wanting to be a new country; but rather a cautionary step against making a weak infrastructure for their new nation. Because of this reason, I probably would choose Anti-Federalism, had I lived back then. Although, If my decision is based on what I know now, I would lean more to the Federalist side, because I think the Constitution is swell and serves well as our country’s infrastructure.

[Vicky] For my position, I am not belonging to Federalism or Anti-Federalism. I can understand the government was trying to make the constitution perfect for the country but it just didn't work out for everyone. In the Constitution of United States, there were so many sections in the articles that gave a lot of rights to the government, and this was what Anti-Federalists were afraid of. For example, the Article 1 Section8 in Constitution of United States, " The Congress shall have power: To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United State. To declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." [The U.S. Constitution (3)] Also Anti-Federalists were afraid that once the government gains a lot of rights and power, they might try to take control and make decisions without asking the citizens. In the Article 1 Section 5 of the constitution, “Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-third, expel a member.¨ [The U.S. Constitution (3)] At this time, the people that won the election were those powerful and rich people. I don't have an answer to say which side is right or wrong and I won't try to convince people to believe in one side or the other. But what I believe in is that if the government was not going to make decision by itself or the citizens trusted the government, then I guess the constitution would just work out fine.

[Kyle] Federalist or Anti-federalist does not mean much to me. I find strong points to both sides, but cannot subjectively say I am for one side or the other. I am clearly able to see the anti-federalist’s points; they mutually did not want to have a recap of the revolution they had just finished. They believed that the centralized government would have too much power over the other states and that the smaller states would not be heard. I wholly agree with this statement and if I was living back then it would be prominent to me that my voice be heard and if I was living in a small state that might not have happened. On the other hand I can see where the federalists are coming from. After going through the whole revolution they wanted to make sure it was worth while by ratifying the constitution. They were ready to form their own government, a democracy, and start what is now America. I see eye to eye with this because I would want to finalize the revolution and start to unite America, the thirteen colonies, as soon as possible. From my understanding I am unable to side with either the federalists or anti-federalists. The two sides have valid reasons for what they were trying to do. Furthermore, not living back in that time makes it difficult to fully understand just exactly what the people back then were going through. That leaves me at a neutral state, not sure and not leaning towards one side or the other.

[Tiffany] After a bit of surface researching, I put almost no effort in deciding that “I would be a federalist of course, the Constitution was a step in building our nation, why not?” At the time, I regarded the Anti-Federalists as a group that was just stubborn and didn’t want to change. After digging deeper into North Carolina’s history and looking at the Anti-Federalist causes more thoroughly, my vision of my position was altered. Realizing that the reasons of the Anti-Federalists were just as legitimate as the Federalists’, my position is in a foggy area. The Federalists wanted to start tackling the messy project of building a new nation. In a way, a centralized government would act like the binding behind the states to create a sense of unity between states. This would make things more efficient and organized. The Anti-Federalists were worried that the centralized government might obsess over their power and soon turn into a monarchy—what they had been fighting to separate from in the first place. Looking back, I honestly can’t point my finger and choose what side to take… Both sides were reasonable, and there would be no point in arguing who was entirely right and who was entirely wrong.

Quote Sources:
1. Kennedy, David M. The American Pageant. Comp. Lizabeth Cohen. Ed. Thomas A. Bailey. AP ed. Vol. 13. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. (accessed: November 19, 2006)
2. Powell, William S. North Carolina: Through Four Centuries. Chapel Hill, London: The University of North Carolina P, 1989. 225-227 (accessed: November 15, 2006)
3. The U.S. Constitution: URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm (accessed November 2007)