Just as there were differences among the Antifederalists, so were there differences among the Federalists, but in general, despite those differences, there were clear and stronger agreements which bonded the Federalists in opposition to the Antifederalists and in favor of a strong central government and some inevitable loss of sovereignty on the part of the states. Obviously, if the states maintained their sovereignty in its entirety, then the national, or federal government would not be a government at all but only a mock government with no real power. If a true nation were going to emerge from the Constitution, it would have to include a clearly delineated central power which would override the powers of the states:
In the Philadelphia Convention, Governor Morris "explained the distinction between a federal and a national, supreme, Govt.; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation. He contended that in all communities there must be one supreme power, and one only" (Main 120).
The history of federalism in the U.S. has been one in which the struggle or conflict between the central government and the states has continued to this day. The central concern of the 2000 Presidential election is how much power the federal government should have in relation to the states and individuals--with respect to taxation, abortion, education, health care, and so on. Clearly, the contentious debate over federalism is as alive today as it was over 200 years ago at the founding of the nation. The purpose of federalism was to maintain a central government which was strong enough to keep the states together, to provide security for those states and through those states, and yet to be restricted from gathering too much power unto itself which would lead to the kind of tyranny the colonists had just thrown off through the Revolutionary War.
The inclusion of the...