Arguments Against The Anti-Federalist

I was surprised that I actually agreed with what the Anti-federalist had to say. I found it to be more dense and harder then the federalist number ten. Once I found a good source and was able to understand what the points they are trying to make were, I found that I liked the views they stand for. I liked the idea of more representatives instead of just one for the whole nation. If each state had their own representative they would be able to better represent the interests of those people. Also they wouldn’t have to do so much damage control if each state was taking care of by their own specific representative. If each state had control over whom and what they taxed, they could better control the economy of that state. The people would feel

The main argument against ratifying the constitution by the Anti-Federalists was that they thought that the government would be created would be too powerful and they would just be paving the way for another monarchy like the one that they had just fought so hard to free themselves from in England. They also wanted to add a Bill of Rights before ratifying the constitution and not after. The Pros are that the document had stated to provide protection against the cruel and unlawful act of ruling the american colonies.Freedom of movement which is under Article IV. This section explained the security and perpetual interactions and partnership among the citizens of the emerged nation. The document created a bridge to connect the individual States

The Federalists supports the Constitution as it was and want to change the Constitution immediately. Federalists support a strong central government giving little power to states but ample amounts to federal government. “We may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.” This was taken from the Federalist Papers No. 39 and it describes how the Federalist think the government should be run. “It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their

In America today there are many political parties which include the Democrats and the Republicans. The beginning of political parties started in 1787 with the federalist, then later on the anti-federalist in 1796. Alexander Hamilton was the leader of the federalist party. Thomas Jefferson was the leader of the anti-federalist; who called themselves the Democratic-Republicans. Our first president, George Washington warned us about having parties and the danger of them. However, "not until Congress debated the ratification and implementation of Jay’s Treaty with Great Britain did two political parties clearly emerge"; the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. Today the most influential parties are the Democrats and the Republicans. These parties win all of the presidential elections as of today. Political parties formed because the United States was beginning to grow and expand. Many people had different opinions and so political parties were formed. People were concerned about the how the new government was going to be organized.

After the American Revolution our nation was in major debt and suffering from an ecumenic depression throughout the colonies. The debt and other fiscal issues our nation was facing made some of the founding political members to want a more focused federal power. The opinions of two groups known as the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were divided about the new proposed Constitution. The founding members known as the Federalists wanted a strong central government and weak state governments were in favor of keeping the newly proposed Constitution,whereas the opposing group of men were known as the Anti-Federalists were opposed to it. The Anti-Federalists had believed that the power should belong to the states and not the central government, and that the nation should keep the Articles of Confederation despite the fact that it had failed. In the time period of 1787-1788 the views and ideas of the Federalists would have been better than those of the Anti-Federalists for more than one reason.

There were several reasons that the Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the Constitution. The most predominate reasons being are no defined state or citizens rights, the central government having too much power, non-accurate representation and slaves were not counted as part of the population.

The Federalists papers are a collection of seventy-seven essays that justify the existence and power of the Constitution. In the “Federalist Paper 10”, Madison begins his introduction with “Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately than its tendency to break and control violence of faction.” Madison believed that one of the strongest aspects of the constitution was minimizing and controlling violence caused by factions. This then brings up the dividends within the nation and how factions solely look out for their interests of themselves while working against the best interest of the public. Madison goes on to say that, there will inevitably be factions as long as there was classification

After Shay’s Rebellion and the nation on the brink of bankruptcy it was clear that the Articles of Confederation would not be sufficient. So began the great battle for the balance between order and freedom. The main point of dispute between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in their debates over the ratification of the Constitution surrounded the question of what powers were necessary in order to insure the security of the nation. The Federalists believed that a strong central government was needed, for reasons of national security and economic prosperity. However the Anti-Federalists were determined on retaining the sovereignty of the states and, in turn, their secured political freedom.

After the Americans won the Revolutionary War, the Americans feared a central government that was too powerful. To meet these wishes The Articles of Confederation were created, it had a weak central government and gave states the overall power. This was running the United States into the ground, which is not what was planned. They decided a change was necessary to save their country. Each representative from the thirteen colonies came together to write The Constitution. The supporters of ratifying the constitution were called Federalists and those against ratifying it were called Anti-Federalists.

The position Anti-Federalist is the best choose for me because Anti-Federalist believed the government didn’t equally divide the powers among the courts. They also believed the constitution give too much power to the federal court at the damage of the state and local courts. Anti-Federalist didn’t want to break down federalism they want to make improvements to the courts give more power into the states hands. I agreed with the constitution but after the Bill of rights was added on later was key to the whole thing. The bill of rights was a big Soul in our natural rights our country would be very different without it.

The anti federalists favored a government that granted more power to the states because they also believed in an economy based on agriculture and farming. Additionally, they thought that there was no need to make a Constitution, and that the Articles of Confederation should be improved, not replaced. And fearing that the government would abuse their power and neglect the rights of the people, they were against a strong central government.

When the U.S Constitution approved by the delegates it was then signed on September 17, 1787. The forward requirement of the U.S. Constitution to be approved was that nine of the thirteen states had to ratify the Constitution so that it would apply to all thirteen states. This ratification requirement was laid out in Article VII of the Constitution. The clause states the following “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” This was in no way an easy task for the Federalists because there were many that opposed this documentation known as the Anti- Federalists ("Articles of Confederation," n.d.).

Federalist Number 10, written by James Madison goes into depth about factions. He describes fractions at the very beginning as a group of people who come together to make their voices be heard about common interests they may have. They also tend to break the rights other people of society have. This is bound to happen because people are coming from different classes and backgrounds. Madison goes on to say that there are two ways to control this: to remove its causes and to control its effects. He says the first cannot be removed because it is inevitable and part of life. He specifically states, “The one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions…” The second is as impracticable as the first he says. The government is going to help protect these differences that will arise. Madison goes into the government

Moreover, it was the appearance of factions that people like James Madison was arguing against as it pertains to national security. Madison believed that the presence of factions exposed the instability of our new nation and severely limited in ability to prosper. He viewed factions so harshly that he described them as, “The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished.” James Madison realized that factions equaled a lack of unity, which if time is any indication, was incredible foresight by our future

In the Anti-federalist number one it states that there is a lot of risk in accepting the constitution, because it has the potential to solve a lot of the nation’s problems but it could also backfire. Theoretically if the constitution does solve the nation’s problems our future generations to come will reap the rewards and benefits, but, if it doesn’t succeed the future citizens of our nation will blame the founders and will lack their God given liberty. The document states that creating a strong central government (which is what the Constitution is trying to establish), would leave the people venerable (unlike the Articles of Confederation), which provide the states with all the power. In the Constitution it does state that it would share the