Recognizing the attractiveness of the federal principle, the supporters of the Constitution called themselves “Federalists,” even though their true intentions were not to form a “federal” government at all. By Madison’s own admission, the Constitutional system created a consolidated-federal hybrid:

The proposed Constitution . . . is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national (see Federalist No. 39).

It turned out to be a stroke of political genius for Madison and his allies to call themselves “federalists” while supporting a Constitution that created a less than purely federal system. The opponents of the Constitution were left with the unenviable title of “Anti-federalists,” as if they were opposed to the federal principle. (It should be noted here that the word “federal” has become one of the most misused words in the history of the English language. We regularly refer to the “federal” government, the “federal” budget and “federal” programs, policies and agencies when we are really talking about the national government, budget, programs, policies, agencies, etc.) However, this usage of the term “federal” is technically incorrect. In the American context, the technical meaning of terms such as “federalism” and “federal” has to do with the sharing of powers between national, state, and local governments.

While the Federalists would eventually win the battle for ratification of the Constitution, the definition of federalism and the relationship between the national and state governments was not settled once and for all in 1789. Indeed, Woodrow Wilson, the twenty-eighth president of the United States, would later observe:

The question of the relation of the States to the Federal Government is the cardinal question of our constitutional system. At every turn of our national development, we have been brought face to face with it, and no definition either of statesmen or of judges has ever quieted or decided it.¹⁸