Compare And Contrast Federalist And Anti Federalists

Federalist 10 has the strongest argument that supports our current Constitution. Madison’s view goes against the traditional view that a small republic is better than a larger one. The proposed government that Madison supports was trying to establish a strong government that would be capable of controlling violence and damage that are caused by factions. Factions being a group of people who gather together to protect and promote their social economic interests and political opinions (Madison, 72). The biggest concern was that the factions would become too powerful and start to over power the government if the United States did not have a strong government. Different factions with contrasting ideas pose a threat to the wellbeing of the people. The factions could be either a majority or minority of a whole. If the factions have closer contact with one another they are more likely to participate in acts of violence, which would effect the way the United States is governed. A small republic would draw attention to everyone’s different interests, therefore highlighting the major contrasts between different

Through “Federalist No. 10”, Madison explains his reasons for his belief that the new government and Constitution would prevail and be superior to more democratic forms of government since the representation proposed would allow for more security and would “refine and enlarge the public views” (Madison 1). The Constitution would also call for a separation of national and state governments, allowing there to be specific representation for states along with other representation occurring for the country as a whole which would take into consideration the roles of the state governments as well. This form of government, Madison argues, would make sure that the “encreased variety of parties, comprised within the union, encrease [the] security” of each party and of those represented through the government (2). Through the republic formed through the Constitution, there would be enough democracy for the people to be represented by delegates through elections and would even allow for more security since the democracy present before the forming of the Constitution was “incompatible with person security, or the rights of property” since there was too much freedom provided to the people (1). The republic, Madison argues, “promises the cure for which [they] are seeking” (1).

The name, Anti-Federalists is not the best-suited name for what they truly are, or what they believe in. “They are called the Anti-Federalists, but it should be made clear at once that they were not Anti-Federal at all.” (Main xi) Originally, the word federalist, meant anyone who supported the Articles of Confederation. The term “Anti-Federalist” was placed on them to portray them as people who did not agree with the Federal Government, which was exactly opposite of what they are.

The primary source is Federalist paper No. 10, which is a the first of James Madison’s contributions to the series of essays known as the Federalist Papers. This essay is a highly regarded paper among the collection. The Federalist No. 10 is merely rhetoric used to rationalize the benefits of a new system of government, explain how the new union will be constructed and most crucial to the essay, sway public opinion to support the ratification of the new constitution. This particular primary source is imperative to understanding the complexity of the United States government at the time of its birth as well as now. Madison makes an argument that the expansion of the federal government is necessary to protect liberty against the excess of democracy. The document reveals the advantages of a Republic and serves as an explanation as to why the U.S. espouses a Republican form of government and the Constitution.

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.

Then there were Anti- Federalists who believed that the bulk of duties should continue to be left to each state's own discretion, so that there would be no misrepresentation of the people it governed. It's left to say that neither side saw eye to eye, but would eventually reach a "compromise", the Federalists would institute their version of the Constitution which had a clear notion of Central Government and it's duties. The Anti-Federalists would receive an additional amendment to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights), which would protect the personal liberties they were convinced a Central Government would revoke. Both sides seemed fairly satisfied with the outcome, though there was still fear of that popular tyranny from the outside. But the act of tyranny they should have feared was their own, for the Framer's motives for creating a new constitution was really protecting the few (the rights of the Wealthy) against the many (the non-elite).

One strong view against the ratification of the Constitution was that such a body as Congress would never accurately represent the interests of its members’ constituents and would be a centralized and authoritative body. Madison answers this charge and specifically the argument that the House was too small to possess adequate knowledge of the interests of citizens in Federalist 56. In it, he declares that representatives in the house only need to have local knowledge of commerce, taxation, and their respective militias. Madison argued that other details, “do not lie within the compass of legislation” (Madison, p. 313). Consequently, the few members of the house will be able to accurately represent their constituents because the issues they must legislate for are broad and general in nature and other minute details of their local areas are settled by their respective state legislative bodies and therefore the constitution created a decentralized institution because Congress only given powers to legislate for broad and general issues. Another argument against the House of Representatives, was that they will consist of members who do not sympathize with the masses. In Federalist 57,

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.

The Federalists and Anti-Federalists are widely known in our history. When we hear these two terms, our minds immediately go to the Constitution and more importantly, the differences between the two. The Federalists are known as those who supported the Constitution with one of its most famous members being James Madison. Then come the Anti-Federalists who obviously did not agree with the Constitution. Based on reading Chapter 1 of Debating Democracy, I would say that I agree more with the Federalists views on human nature, citizen participation, and the role of elected representatives.

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.

Immediately, Madison begins the paper by presenting one of the strongest arguments for the Constitution, which is the approach that the document establishes a government that is capable of controlling the mischief and violence of a faction. Further, Madison enunciates “Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed that its tendency to break and control the violence of faction” (The People Shall Judge, P. 289). Inside the excerpt, Madison demonstrates that within the country and the faction that is a state, there will be chaos and anarchy and without the federal government being there with guidance, the states would not be able to function as the are supposed

The United States of America has a history of bipartisanship, beginning with the conflict between the Patriots and the Loyalists during the American Revolution. The rivalry between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists emerged during the process of ratifying the Constitution between 1787 and 1788. Initially, the Federalists supported the Constitution while the anti-Federalists did not (199). The principle differences dividing the Federalists and anti-Federalists were the controversy of creating a federal government and how to interpret the Constitution. Anti-Federalists insisted on protecting the rights of the states and the individual people above all, while strictly interpreting the Constitution. Federalists strived for national unity and broadly interpreted the Constitution. Leading Federalists included Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and for a short time James Madison (199). The anti-Federalists were led by James Monroe, and later James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The Federalists and anti-Federalists disagreed on fundamental ideals such as how the new nation should handle matters including finance, foreign policy, and naturalization.

Even though the Anti-Federalists worry that the popularly elected House of Representatives will tend to be too weak in relation to the other great institutions of the federal government. The Anti-Federalists charge that the constitution violates the idea of strict separation among the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government—and does so most dangerously in the creation of the aristocratic Senate. , The fulcrum of the system, in Madison’s eyes, is a Senate that is not elected directly and that is intended as an assembly of elder statesmen. 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 Madison states this shows a failure

The differences between the Federalists and the Antifederalists are significant and complex at times. Federalists’ beliefs that they could be better as described by the nationalist. The Federalists were highly instrumental in 1787 with the building of the US Constitution, according to the Antifederalists. However, the Antifederalists opposed the ratification of the US Constitution. The Antifederalists never organized efficiently across all thirteen states.

Even with a representative government, its separation of powers, and a system of checks and balances, Madison also favored the implementation of a written Constitution, detailing the limits of the federal government’s power. The written Constitution of the United States created a paradigm shift in the way the world viewed Constitutions. It created a tangible means whereby citizens could hold the government accountable. While the Constitution of the United States accomplished many goals in regards to establishing the role of the federal government, it left much open to