 |
LITR 4326
Early American Literature Research Posts 2016 (research post assignment) Research Post 2 |
 |
Thomas Kibodeaux
The Founding Fathers: Powerful Central Government vs. States’ Rights
The question of whether or not the Founders were for a strong central
government or advocates of giving the states the majority of the power can be
answered in both yes and no. This clash of ideology separated the Founders
into basically two parties: the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists. The
Federalists such as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison
were in favor of an oligarchy-style government, in which the aristocracy class
would rule with a strong federal government. On the other side, the
Democratic-Republicans such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin viewed a
strong central government as being a system too easily corrupted by those in
power. So, they relied on the states to hold most of the power and wanted the
federal government to hold almost none, in hopes that this would prevent another
monarchy.
The idea behind the Federalist agenda was to have a system in place to
check the powers of the state representatives. This system came to be with the
creation of the Constitution, as the previous system, the Articles of
Confederation, failed in that it made the central government too weak to be
effective. With the state and federal governments working side by side, it can
be argued that “electing both state and national officials also increases the
input of citizens into their government” (ushistory.org/gov). This system makes
the federal government able to stop the spread of harmful policies from state to
state by slowing down the policy process and allowing more room for critiquing
and checking.
The
Democratic-Republican agenda focused around the idea that a strong federal
government would run off the rails eventually if it were ever given enough
power. So, in order to prevent an overreach of a federal government and maintain
order, the solution would be to incorporate several smaller governments as the
governing powers. “Not only would establishing several smaller governments (the
states) afford people the ability to move elsewhere, but they would also have
more of a say in the public affairs of their surroundings” (ohiohouse.gov). They
believed that policies enacted by these states would better reflect the will of
the people in that area, as opposed to making policies from a federal
headquarters where the federal officials do not effectively understand the needs
of the people in that area. James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 45, “The
powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few
and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and
indefinite” (ohiohouse.gov). Now, over time, the federal government has done
exactly what the Democratic-Republicans foresaw. With its “few and defined”
powers, it has grown to be much more powerful than was ever intended by the
Federalists.
These parties and ideologies are completely comparable to the party
system in play in the United States today; generally the Democratic Party relies
on the federal government to fix any issues, while the Republican Party relies
on the states to have the final say in decision-making. The only major factor
separating these ideologies, practice-wise, is that the Articles of
Confederation did not work, while the Constitution did, although how well can be
argued. Regardless, this clash of ideologies (as in the Federalists wanting to
check the states, and the Democratic-Republicans seeking to have a weak central
government) creates a fairly balanced system, allowing the states and national
government to have a say, even if it’s not an equivalent say, in the other's
actions and policies.
Sources
https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-founding-fathers/about-the-founding-fathers/
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/3a.asp
|
|
|
|
