Beliefs of the Anti-Federalists Essay

The Anti-Federalists argued that their form of government was more effective. They argued many points that were reasonable. Brutus wrote that he feared that our government would be controlled by a group of elites, and he thought that these elites would abuse the people’s rights by just doing what would only benefit them. Brutus thought once the elites started running our country, that they would be in power for a long time and no one could change their minds on certain views. (Brutus 1).

The Federalists didn’t really like the state having all the power and believed that the federal government should have more power. The Antifederalists believed that the federal government shouldn’t have a lot of power, so that our government doesn’t get take over. They also believed that the states should have, according to George Bryan,” all power.” Some people thought we should have kept the articles so that we have a stronger state government. The state government in the articles had most of the power, so they had their own taxes and their own little

Antifederalists, in the other hand, feared strong central government, tyranny, and dictatorship, and wanted strong state governments, individual liberties and opposed ratification of the Constitution (until a bill of rights was added). Federalists’ supporters were merchants, skilled workers, laborers, cities and small states. Antifederalists’ supporters were large states and rural areas. Both sides believed in the principles of limited government but had different ways of how to limit the government. Antifederalists feared that the national government would take away all the powers of the state government so that is why they wanted the powers of national government to be limited and specified. They also claimed that the bill of rights should be added to the Constitution to limit government’s powers over

The Anti-Federalists favor a central government similar to the Articles of Confederation. Not all of the Anti-Federalists think identical; Some prefer to stay with the Articles of Confederation and a slightly stronger central government with the states in power would work for America better others prefer to compromise and only adding the Bill of Rights. "The objects of jurisdiction…, are so numerous, and the shades of distinction between civil causes are oftentimes so slight, that it is more than probable that the state judicatories would be wholly superseded; for in contests about jurisdiction, the federal court, as the most powerful, would ever prevail." In the Centinel No. 1 the Anti-Federalists tell the people that slightly changing the judicial system or the law can change everything. “It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. — The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation.” In Brutus I the Anti-Federalists input their opinions on how government does not need to be run by one big power but by smaller powers held in the

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

Although, the Federalists failed, they did have a few accomplishments during their run, including the organization of the surviving administrative machinery of national government, the establishment of traditions of federal budgetary integrity and credit competence, and the initiation of the important doctrine of noninterference in foreign affairs. Anti-Federalists were those who opposed everything that the federalists stood for, including their plan to create a strong U.S. federal government, and the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-Federalists were known to be unorganized compared to the Federalists, but they did have a great group of leaders who were significantly well known in state politics. The political elites of the Anti-Federalists included a wide range from James Winthrop in Massachusetts to George Mason of Virginia. These Anti-Federalists were also accompanied by a large group of normal Americans who were dominate in rural areas. The proposed Constitution was thought by the Anti-Federalists to be threatened to lead to political

These discussions and debates often took place between two specific groups, the Federalists, and their opponents who they termed the Anti-Federalists. However, these so-called Anti-Federalists would have referred to themselves as Democratic Republicans or Federal Republicans, so they will be referenced in this vein. On the side of the Federalists were men such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Gouverneur Morris, and other proponents of a centralized Federal government. The opposition to these ideals was led by men like Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and other state governors, farmers, and craftsmen concerned about the powers being allocated to the proposed central government. These

n the history of the United States, the Anti-federalists were the individuals who opposed the implementation of a central federal government which would seek to oversee different operations in the country along with the ratification of the constitution. Instead, they advocated that power ought to remain within the hands of the local and state governments. Conversely, the Federalists advocated for a stronger government that would oversee the operations of all states. They also wanted the ratification of the existing constitution in order to help the government in managing its debts along with the tensions that were developing in particular states. The Federalist movement was formed by Alexander Hamilton, and it functioned as the first

The Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution while the Anti Federalists were against it. This boiled down to simple beliefs held by both groups. Anti Federalists believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government and left state governments powerless. Anti Federalists were in favor of a weaker central governments and stronger local state governments. They believed that central government was too far removed from the people, and that the nation was too large, for it to serve them on a local state basis. This resulted in the fear that people’s voices would be taken away; this fear of oppression was only increased by the fact that the Constitution didn’t include a Bill of Rights. However, Federalists believed that a strong central government, accompanied by the Constitution, was needed after the Article of Confederation failed or the nation wouldn’t survive. In the eyes of the Federalists, a Bill of Rights was not needed because the Constitution did not put any limits on the rights of the citizens; however

The Anti-Federalist put up a long and hard fight, however, they were not as organized as the Federalists. While the Anti- Federalist had great concerns about the Constitution and National government, the Federalist had good responses to combat these concerns. The Federalist were and for the Constitution and feel the Article of Confederation were not worth ratifying, these should be scrapped altogether. They felt that the Articles limited the power of congress, because congress had to request cooperation from the states. Unlike the Anti-Federalist, the Federalist organized quickly, had ratifying conventions, and wrote the Federalist papers to rebut the Anti- Federalist arguments.

Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist The road to accepting the Constitution of the United States was neither easy nor predetermined. In fact during and after its drafting a wide-ranging debate was held between those who supported the Constitution, the Federalists, and those who were against it, the Anti-Federalists. The basis of this debate regarded the kind of government the Constitution was proposing, a centralized republic. Included in the debate over a centralized government were issues concerning the affect the Constitution would have on state power, the power of the different branches of government that the Constitution would create, and the issue of a standing army. One of the most important concerns of the

Anti-Federalists and Federalists were opinionated groups who tried to sway Americans about the Constitution. Anti-Federalists opposed developing a federal government, and they did not want to ratify the Constitution. Instead, they wanted the state governments to keep the power. The Federalists disagreed because they wanted a government that was stronger on the national level and that had the Constitution to manage tensions and debts from the Revolution. They both differed in many ways, but one way that they were similar was because they had an impact on the way the Constitution was written.

The early years of the Constitution of the United States were full of political strife. The two prominent political ideals were complete opposites. The Jeffersonian Republicans were focused on giving power to the people and maintaining a pastoral economy, while the Federalists supported the control of the government by the elite class, and maintaining “positive” democracy. Both parties feared the influence and effect the other party would have on the public. In Linda K. Kerber's article, “The Fears of the Federalists”, the major concerns Federalists held in the early 19th century are described. Ever since the war with and separation from England, the citizens of America were seen to be continually drive to “patriotic rebellion” as a way to

For the Constitution to become the nationally followed series of rule, nine of thirteen states would have had to approve it. To gain this approval, the people of America had to be convinced that a stronger government was needed to create a successful country; while being assured that this government would not take away their liberties and would not give power to only those who were more privileged than others. Small states, who approved the unity, were the first to ratify the Constitution unlike large states who found the individual governments adequate.

While the anti-Federalists believed the Constitution and formation of a National Government would lead to a monarchy or aristocracy, the Federalists vision of the country supported the belief that a National Government based on the Articles of the Confederation was inadequate to support an ever growing and expanding nation.