Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

People had many different opinions on the ratification of the Constitution. There were Federalists and Anti-Federalists that debated on many topics of the Constitution. The main reasons were: what type of government the United States of America should have, the people controlling our government, and some of the powers they should have. The Federalists were the ones who wanted change. They wanted to make changes to the government that was originally proposed. The Federalists wanted the government to protect the people, but not abuse their powers. They wanted to have the powers divided between the national and the state governments. The Constitution also stated that the government

Establishing an effective system of government has proven to be an obstacle for centuries. Fortunately, the Founding Father recognized the common flaws of governments, as did many common men in the colonies. Consequently, the ratification of the constitution was vital for a healthy governmental system, though it did bring about much debate and persuasion. There were two main positions which people took during the ratification, those being the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist. The Anti-Federalist were a diverse assembly involving prominent men such as George Mason and Patrick Henry, and also the most unlikely of individuals, those being Farmers and shopkeepers. The chief complaint about the Constitution was that it confiscated the power from the sates, thereby robbing the people of their power. Oppositely, the Federalist believed in removing some control from the states and imparting that power to the national government, thus making America partially national. Throughout this debate, many letters were shared between the two sides, and eventually, it led to the federalist winning over the colonies.

There exists a similarity between both the federalists and the anti-federalists. Both felt that government was necessary because ‘men were not “angels”’ (Bryner, Public Virtue and the Roots of American Government, 1987). However, they disagree on the size of government and the republic. The federalists wanted a large republic with a central government while the anti-federalist wanted a small republic with a state government. In this essay, I generally agree with the statements except the part where federalists were republicans because they envisioned the commonweal of the national community. The weakness of this argument is that there may be a false impression that the candidate is truly virtuous. Thus, when he becomes the national government,

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

For AP United States history I chose the federalist and anti federalist compare and contrast that impacted America to the first party system because the past actions have affected us in the present. We analyze the past to find the foundations of present day political problems. I relate this to the SLO by committing time to community to present the past to the community they can understand how our country was developed and where the problems came from. I can urge them to understand why seeing the past is important to relate to the present. I overcame the obstacles in the completion of this assignment by reading and researching on comparing and contrasting the federalist and anti federalist to understand their point of views and why they had

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 Anti-Federalist Papers recognized that the people one in power “can seldom or never resume it again but by force”. The establishment of a single law that would be equally applied to all states and where the power would be vested in a central government represented, for the anti-federalists, the condition of the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States. “Nor the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given”. Anti-Federalist Papers established their fear on having a judicial branch that would overrule over the state courts without attending to the necessity of the local people, as well, the congress would be able to limit the decisions of the national state if it would affect the well-being of the whole nation, again, limiting the purpose of the national government on the pursuit of happiness of its own

The concept of theory versus reality is a constant in everyday life. Every person has experienced a situation in which the idea in their head was much better than the outcome. All actions have consequences, and sometimes those consequences are worse than others. In the case of the Federalists vs. The Anti-Federalists, was the drafting of the Constitution actually worth it in the end? When the colonists first came over seas from Great Britain there was one thing that was vastly agreed on—a change in how government works and runs was necessary for the future of America. Two major groups eventually formed behind this way of thinking, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were under the impression that the formation of a constitution and a strong federal government was needed. On the opposite political end there were The Anti-Federalists, were opposed to the idea of a constitution because they worried that the government and the people running it would become too corrupt and powerful. They also believed that a smaller central government was needed with larger governments at the state levels. This smaller central government would be similar to what was formed under the Articles of Confederation. Both sides bring very good arguments, and it is impossible to truly know whether one side’s plan of government would have been better than the other. But when looking at the facts of where our country came from, and where our country is

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

In debate of the ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists and the Anti- Federalists agreed on several things: the necessity of some form of national government, the preservation of the right to vote, and the need to secure our liberties. The Federalists wanted a strong central government, whereas the Anti- Federalists wanted more power reserved to the state government. The right to vote is important for both sides, but they hold conflicting views on the amount of involvement through the power of the vote. Finally, individual rights is something that they both strongly agree upon, but where it should be officially held in our documents presents a huge conflict. Between Federalists and Anti- Federalists, there is an understanding in the importance of these matters, however each side has different interpretations in mind.

The arguments made by Federalists and anti-Federalists regarding the office and powers of the presidency during the ratifying debates that followed the drafting of the Constitution in 1787 were persuasive, but distinctly at odds. Both sides, however, sought the same thing, how best to allocate power in a unified republic of states? From this question opposing views developed as to whether or not a President should even exist, and if so, what powers he should be granted. I will briefly examine the presidential powers that were primarily awarded under Article II of the new Constitution. I will then explore the opposing arguments that arose during the ratifying debates concerning those granted powers. I do so in the interest of offering a

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.

Except now instead of Loyalists vs. Patriots there were Democratic Republicans vs. Federalists. Upon legal recognition of the United States as an entity separate from Britain, a document was created to establish distinct rules and values of the government. This document, called The Constitution of the United States (1787), would “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves…”. The Constitution has been successful and has served the test of time, but everything it states allows for various interpretations. A major divide in popular opinion was created and would remain past Thomas Jefferson's 1800 inauguration. People who based their views strictly upon the Constitution were known as Anti-Federalists or Democratic Republicans. They believed in a small national government with strong individual state governments. Antifederalists were often common people who wanted fair representation. In 1787 a document was written called Letters from a Federal Farmer. The line “I can consent to no government, which, in my opinion, is not calculated equally to preserve the rights of all orders of men in the community.”, really emphasizes the fear of an overpowering government. Federalists supported a strong national government with smaller less powerful state governments. James Madison, in Federalist 10 (one of the Federalist Papers), refuted the anonymous Anti-Federalist author by writing that “statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests and render them all subservient to the public good..”. James Madison thought that by enabling statesmen to have power they could undermine things established for the public