Jeffersonian anti-federalism triumphs Hamilton's Federalism

Again, while Con also finds value in the articulations of Jeffersonian idealism, limited government, and individual liberty, Pro has yet to make as to how it trumps Hamiltonian Federalism. In Round 3, he mentioned several ideas including his personal opinion about the role of the federal government and its appropriate role in areas among them healthcare and education. Although these are important and relevant issues, they are superfluous to the original proposition: Jeffersonian anti-federalism triumphs Hamilton's Federalism. For Pro to make a successful argument, he must demonstrate how it TRIUMPHS. Triumphs meaning: Jeffersonian anti-federalism [prevailed/was more successful/accomplished more] than Hamilton’s Federalism Pro states that the only job of the federal government is national security. And Pro also states: “laws that are not authorized by the constitution, and all states are required to abide by them, then the freedom in which the founders fought for is thereby taken away.” Pro seems to be arguing exactly the kind of government under the Articles of Confederation. Pro already said his position is the states should have ultimate sovereignty over the federal government. He accepts the doctrine of nullification. However, while the decentralized system of government under the Articles of Confederation in theory sound appealing and it did allow states sovereignty over the federal government, it failed. And it is not the case the Articles of Confederation or a weak decentralized government was what the Founders fought to protect and maintain in perpetuity. Do not take my word for it. Here is George Washington thoughts on this issue. On February 28, 1785, a worried Washington wrote the Confederation’s secretary of war, Henry Knox, that in the absence of a serious federal government, “we are no more than a rope of sand, and shall as easily be broken”[1]. Washington frequently mentions throughout his correspondence and in his battlefield journal. Quoting from Washington journal from May 1781 Washington summarized the problem of relying on the state governments to provide support during the war: Instead of having everything in readiness to take the field, we have nothing; and instead of having the prospect of a glorious offensive campaign before us, we have a bewildered and gloomy defensive one—unless we should receive a powerful aid of ships, land troops, and money from our generous allies…[2] Addressing the fears of Southerners that warned that a stronger Union would mean “tyranny,” Washington wrote, “If we are afraid to trust one another under qualified powers, there is an end of the Union” [3]. The reality of the situation, according to Washington and Hamilton if the country wanted to be a union, it had to rid itself of the Articles of Confederation. Perhaps the Articles had the potential to last for years or decades, but congresses had no authority to tax, settle disputes between states, or engage in essential government functions without the unanimous approval by all thirteen states. The system designed by the founders, championed by the Federalists gave new meaning to federal. The federal government is supreme and sovereign within its sphere; but that sphere is defined and limited by the Constitution. The states are co-equally sovereign within the sphere of their reserved powers. The balance Federalists stuck in the Constitution has been successful. It is still imperfect, creaky in vital spots, as moments in our history have shown. [1] Fitzpatrick, John C. The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources 1745-1799 Volume 28 December 5, 1784-August 30, 1786 . Best Book [available on Google Books], 1936. [2] Morison, Samuel E. The Oxford History of the American People: Volume One: Prehistory to 1789. New York : Penguin , 1994. Washington excerpt on Page 344 [3]Washington, George. "A Letter from George Washington November 30, 1785." Smithsonian Albert H. Smith Documents Gallery. n.d. http://americanhistory.si.edu....