Difference Between Federalist And Anti-Federalists

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were created in response to the United States Constitution. In 1787, the Second Continental Congress called for a federal convention. This meeting in Philadelphia came to create the U.S Constitution. It originally was held to revise the Articles of Confederation, but due to the mindsets of many proponents present at the convention, like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and the vision of creating a new government rather than fixing the old one, the United States Constitution was formed. Once this was sent to congress it was submitted to the states for ratification. In response, many articles and letters were submitted to the public criticizing the proposition. These articles and letters are where the Anti-Federalist papers are derived from. Although there was opposition to the Constitution, many were in its favor. In response to these criticizing papers, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote papers in the constitutions defense. These were come to be known as the Federalist papers. Two papers in particular, Federalist 51 and Anti--Federalist 51, are written on the topic of checks and balances and how this relates to a separation of powers within the national government. These arguments were successful due to their primary points of contention and strong arguments proposed.

1. Federalists were the colonists who favored the Constitution, wanting a strong national government. These supporters recognized that the issues the country faced in the 1780’s could be traced back to weaknesses of the central government. The lack of influence the central government had was in part due to the Articles of Confederation, which formed a basis for the functions of the government after the United States declared independence. The colonists feared a strong central government would resemble the tyranny of the king.

The Anti-federalist were the people who opposed the sanction of the constitution. They were Samuel Adams and John Hancock etc. They believed that the ratification of the constitution will lead to corruption and abuse of power by the government. The suggested constitution did not benefit the people as it should and did not have an assurance of the people’s right to assembly or bear arms. Anti-federalist believed in controlling government authority, therefore with the assumption that the new ratification will be most favorable to the wealthy, it was a threat to their beliefs— meaning that the poorer citizens will not be able to exercise their liberty for fear of double standard by the elite rulers. Most Anti-federalist were farmers and lower class citizens, so we could understand why they were intimidated by the rich and powerful Federalist— who had backgrounds of educations and could have easily manipulate the system for their own gratification.

The Anti-Federalists felt that citizen participation was key to forming their government whereas the Federalists felt that it was important for them to have some role that it be a more minor one. In the Anti-Federalists belief, they believed that citizens should play a major role in the government because they themselves knew what was best. However, I see a great deal of problems with their viewpoint. By having the people be in control, I see a lot of disagreement happening, especially between the different classes, when they are trying to reach decisions. However, in the Federalists viewpoint, they realized that human nature would get in the way of citizens participating in government so they formed an idea where the citizens would elect officials that would do what was best for the national regardless of factional interests.

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

One of the great debates in American history was over the approval of the Constitution in 1787. Those who supported the Constitution were known as Federalist, a person who advocates and supports a system of government in which several states unite under a Central authority. Those who opposed the approval of the Constitution in favor of small localized government were known as Anti Federalists. Both the Federalists and the Anti Federalists were concerned with the protection of liberty. However, they disagreed over whether or not a strong national government would preserve or eventually destroy the liberty of the American people.

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 Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties were both influential parts in the founding of the United States of America. They differed in many things, but the main disparity between them was the way that each side wanted America to develop. The Federalists believed that the United States should be run by a strict central government while the Anti-federalists believed the opposite and wanted the power to go to the state governments. Federalists also believed in the ratification of the constitution and that it should be used to determine how things like the national debt are handled. In both of these parties there were significant leaders who changed the thoughts and opinions of the people all around the world.

When attempting to ratify the Constitution the delegates were split into two different parties which were the Federalists and Antifederalists. The main difference between the two parties as stated in We the People was that the Federalists wanted a strong national government while the Antifederalists wanted a strong state government and were actually against the Constitution that was proposed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 (Ginsberg, 56). There were three main areas of contention between the groups which was representation, tyranny or unjust rule by those in power, and how they should limit government power.

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

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

After the Constitution was composed and signed in 1787, there was still the pressing need for ratification. Nine of Thirteen states had to agree to its terms before the document would become binding. In the months that followed, the people who staunchly opposed the new constitution, and the people who supported began to write articles defending their positions. They were named the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists, however, were incredibly displeased with the name that the Federalists had coined for them. In that time, Federalism was synonymous with Confederation, which was what the Anti-Federalists were fighting to protect. The arguments were varied, and consisted of valid points from both sides. One of the major arguments of the Anti-Federalists was the supposed validity of a large scale republic. They were skeptical that such a thing could be successfully executed. They wrote about their concerns, worrying about liberty, state and individual, and delegation. James Madison, in Federalist 10, refuted their claims about these issues, and brought about solid reasoning for his desired large republic. While the Anti-Federalists made sound arguments for small republics in terms of liberty and representation, Madison provided better evidence on the sustainability of a large republic.

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.

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.

The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention, where it was held in Philadelphia. It was written by a group of people known as “Farmers,” or the “Founding Fathers,” and few of the most famous Founding Fathers were George Washington (The first president of the USA), Thomas Jefferson (The first vice president and the third president of the USA) James Madison (The fourth president of the USA), Samuel Adams, and Benjamin Franklin. The old government, the Articles of Confederation was not working as it supposed to be, it was vulnerable and cannot secure and defend the new born nation and for that reason the constitution of the united states saw the light.