After Conducting Research, I’m Completely Sure That the Federalists Were Way Better Than the Anti-Federalists

Dear Readers,

Here's a paper I did for a history class a while back. I think it's funny.

After Conducting Research, I’m Completely Sure That the Federalists Were Way Better
Than the Anti-Federalists

I was reading about the views of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists the other day in my history class textbook and I thought it would be cool to read more about their views. Then I thought it would also be cool to write a paper about it. The textbook has a section in it on page 182 titled, “The clash of Federalists and Anti-Federalists." In this section, the book discusses the different views of these schools of thought. It names some of the prominent people who were Federalists and some of the prominent people who were Anti-Federalists. It discusses how their views influenced the debates at the Constitutional Convention. Although it’s brief, it says a good amount about the subject, considering that the textbook covers about 500 years of history in 1034 pages, not including the appendixes and supplementary material. I think the book gives us a good idea of who these people were and what they stood for. So let’s all give David M. Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen, and Thomas A. Baily a pat on the back for a job well done.

Alright, now I analyzed what the textbook said about the issue, so, here’s what I’ll do with the rest of my paper: I’ll make un-academic and unprofessional comments about the Federalists’ lives and their political beliefs. Maybe I’ll quote the Federalists, too. After that, I’ll make un-academic and unprofessional comments about the Anti-Federalists’ lives and their political beliefs. Maybe I’ll quote some of the Anti-Federalists, too. To end the paper, I’ll write a few sentences that draw conclusions about my topic. So, Dr. Lukens, get in your comfy paper-grading chair, have a tall glass of lemonade, and prepare to mark my paper up with your blood red pen.

Now, as planned, I’ll write about the Federalists. The general view of the federalists can be represented with this quote, made on January 25th, 1788, by Jonathan Smith: “Suppose two or three of you had been at the pains to break up a piece of rough land, and sow it with wheat- would you let it lay waste, because you could not agree what sort of a fence to make? Would it not be better to put up a fence that did not please every one’s fancy rather not fence it at all, or keep disputing about it, until the wild beast came in and devoured it.” Johnathan Smith was not really talking about a wheat field and a fence; he was talking about America and a strong government. See, the Federalists saw that it was necessary to establish a strong national government to keep other nations from destroying their new country. Now, more specifically, I’ll discuss three Federalists. Those three are George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton.

First, I’ll write about George Washington, who was a Federalist. George Washington was a much respected man at the Constitutional Convention because he was a general in the Revolutionary War and won some key battles for America. He also had wonderful people skills and was a great political leader. In fact, he was the first president of the United States of America. How can any decent American look down on George Washington? I mean, his face is on our one-dollar bill! In short, if it’s good enough for George Washington, it’s good enough for me. So I suggest that we adopt many of his opinions as our own and join the side of the Federalists.

Second, I’ll write about Benjamin Franklin, who was a Federalist. Benjamin Franklin was a genius all around. He wrote a book called Poor Richard’s Almanac and he invented some great things. Allegedly, he executed a famous scientific experiment where he discovered electricity. I’m pretty sure the experiment involved a key, a kite, and a lightning storm. Benjamin Franklin was very involved in the Constitutional Convention. During the process, he was very concerned for the welfare of the new nation. But, in the end, he was satisfied with and optimistic about the Constitution. James Madison wrote of this experience: “Whilst the last members were signing it, Doctor Franklin, looking towards the President’s chair [Washington was the presiding officer], at the back of which a rising sun happened to be painted, observed to a few members near him, that painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art a rising sun from a setting sun. I have, said he, often and often in the course of the session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting; but now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising sun and not a setting sun.” Dr. Lukens, do you see a rising sun or a setting sun? Is your glass half full or half empty? When your son says Daddy, Daddy, I wanna be an astronaut, do you sneer, snicker, and then sarcastically retort: “Good luck with that, you hard-working goal-oriented genius.” Or, do you lovingly embrace the aspirations of this fledgling star-explorer, hold his hand, look in his eyes and avow: “Good luck with that, you hard-working goal-oriented genius.” Quoth the wisdom of Albert Einstein: “I would rather be an optimist and be wrong than be a pessimist and be right.” You see, Benjamin Franklin’s words are the words of an optimistic man, a man with positive hopes and dreams for the future, a man who understands the value of a strong national government with its accompanying Constitution. Yes, these are the words of a Federalist.

Third, I’ll write about Alexander Hamilton, who was a Federalist. Alexander had an extreme view of what the country should be like. He almost wanted the Colonies to turn into a monarchy because he felt that the common folk were not educated enough to run their own government. Rather, he felt that the high class and the educated were actually the ones qualified to establish and keep a solid, peaceful government. Even though this sounds harsh, Alexander’s ideas were still way better than the Anti-Federalists.

Now, as planned, I’ll write about the Anti-Federalists. The general view of the Anti-Federalists can be summarized with this quote, made on January 25th, 1788 by Amos Singletary: “These lawyers, and men of learning, and monied men, that talk so finely and gloss over matters so smoothly, to make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill, expect to get into Congress themselves; they expect to be the managers of this Constitution and get all the power and all the money into their own hands, and then they will swallow up all us little folks, like the great Leviathan, Mr. President, yes, just as the whale swallowed up Jonah.” How ridiculous this Singletary fellow was! How dare he accuse the Federalists of cannibalism! I bet Singletary hid in his house all day, periodically peeped through the window blinds, and muttered to himself, “The feds are after me… the feds are after me…” Like I said in my title, the Federalists were way better than the Anti-Federalists. More specifically, I’ll discuss two of the Anti-Federalists. Those two are Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee.

Second, I’ll write about Patrick Henry, who was an Anti-Federalist. Henry’s nay-saying opinion regarding the Constitution was expressed like this: “the Constitution reflects in the most degrading and mortifying manner on the virtue, integrity, and wisdom of the state legislatures; it presupposes that the chosen few who go to Congress will have more upright hearts and more enlightened minds than those who are members of the individual legislatures.” How would you feel if somebody told you that you weren’t smart enough to make decisions about how you wanted to run your life? How would you feel if somebody told you that they would make choices for you because you couldn’t handle much power? You would probably feel belittled. You would want to be filled in on all the correct information and then be able to make your own rational decisions. Furthermore, you would want to possess the means whereby the enforcement of your decisions could be made manifest. By feeding on these natural human emotions, Patrick Henry convinced common farmers and the like to be Anti-Federalists.

Third, I’ll write about Richard Henry Lee, who was an Anti-Federalist. He opposed the idea of a strong national government. He was suspicious of the new leaders in America and of the Constitution. He predicted that doom would befall the new nation because the national president would eventually make himself a king and America would be just like Great Britain was. He said, “It will be considered, I believe, as a most extraordinary epoch in the history of mankind, that in a few years there should be so essential a change in the minds of men. Tis really astonishing that the same people who have just emerged from a long and cruel war in defense of liberty, should now agree to fix an elective despotism upon themselves and their posterity” Boy was he wrong. Now, don’t get me wrong, he had some good points, but look at America now! It’s the best country in the world! He also said, “Every man of reflection must see that the change now proposed is a transfer of power from the many to the few.”

All things considered, after conducting research, I think that the Federalists were way better than the Anti-Federalists. In fact, after conducting research and writing this paper, I feel sufficiently confident to make a proclamation, as with the voice of many lions that I, Telemoonfa, do hereby proclaim that the Federalists were way better than the Anti-Federalists.

David M. Kennedy, The American Pageant, 12th Ed. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002), 182.
Bernard Bailyn, The Debate on the Constitution. (New York: The Library of America, 1993), 909.
Isaac Kramnick. The Federalist Papers. (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 36.
Bailyn, The Debate on the Constitution, 906.
Kramnick. The Federalist Papers. 28.
Kramnick, The Federalist Papers, 17.