Federalism seeks a “well constructed Union,” as Madison (1787) put it in Federalist 10, whereas anti-federalists claim “the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous,” (Henry, 1788). The federalists did not just want a strong central government, but one that was organized with a clear structure and a separation of powers. Anti-federalists viewed the new nation as a looser coalition of states, divesting almost all powers including that of the judiciary and legislative branches to more regional controls. The differences between federalism and anti-federalism are pervasive, extending towards their vision of how government should be constructed, and why. These differences, moreover, continue to permeate American political discourse. To understand the differences between how the federalists and anti-federalists conceptualized the American government’s central institutions, it is essential to understand the divergences in their underlying political assumptions, theories, and philosophies. Essentially, the federalists and anti-federalists operated from completely different worldviews or paradigms. Both the federalists and anti-federalists recognized the drawbacks with an authoritarian regime that resembled monarchic rule. The anti-federalists had so deeply internalized the fear of monarchy that it shunned the very idea of a strong central executive...

Brutus (1788), for example, warns of “the danger that would result” from a federal judiciary. On the contrary, in The Federalist Papers No. 78 Hamilton (1788) argues that a strong judiciary enhances the democratic process by preventing incursions on Constitutional authority. The anti-federalists fail to provide any meaningful direction, or even a purpose, function, or form, a federal government might take. On the other hand, Madison (1788) and the other federalists do outline the provisions of “partition of power among the several departments” of government (Federalist 51). Their views are not, however, mutually exclusive given that the federalists do show why partitioning the powers vested into the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches of government prevents the problems that the anti-federalists warn against.
While both the federalists and the anti-federalists make solid claims for their positions, the federalists ultimately have a more cohesive and workable vision for the future of the nation. A loose coalition of states lacks the power with which to make decisions regarding foreign policy, something that the federalists did anticipate and which would become more of an issue as the centuries moved on towards…