Similarities Between The Federalist And The Anti-Federalists

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.

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

Most Americans did not trust the new government that was in place, but the Anti-Federalist was really skeptical of the government in general and strong national government. So in not trusting the government they did not approve of the new constitution. They were afraid it created a government that the people could not manage. Many notable Americans were Anti-Federalists. Some of the creators of the Anti-Federalist papers included George Mason and Elbridge Gerry. Both were present the Philadelphia Convention but had declined to sign the constitution. The Anti-Federalist believed that the Constitution had many imperfections. The Anti-Federalist believed the Constitution should have been constructed in a more public place and not behind closed

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

In the article The Fears of the Federalist by Linda K. Kerber and The Fears of the Jeffersonian Republic by Drew R. McCoy, both draws the ideals of the federalist and the Republicans distant conflict of opposing ideas in the political field. Kerber expresses, in her article, how federalist were carefully placed people with leadership from the top minds of wealthy society. As for McCoy shined the Republicans in his article as a bright blue collar society of united people that were more willing to change with more of rebellious mindset. Yet these groups seem to have ideas on different spectrums of the political layout. A vision of what America should become, both feared that the effects of each other's assembly would have on the public and influence for change in the future of the United States stability at home and foreign.

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.

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.

Federalists or Anti-federalists are both fair sides, and each side has an arguable amount of supporters. I am an Anti-federalist, or someone who opposes the Constitution. Moreover, we believe that the Constitution takes too much power away from the people. The Federalists on the other hand are those who support the Constitution. They link themselves with the idea of federalism, and federalism is when power is divided and shared between a central government and local governments. In addition, the Constitution gives the national government too much power, it doesn’t provide for a republican government, and in the end, it doesn't provide a Bill of Rights which is vital.

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.

In 1787, the passage of the Constitution by the states were not by any means certain. There were two sides to the ratification of the Constitution: Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were against ratifying it, while the Federalists were dead set on trying to ratify the constitution. One of the major issues constantly being debated between these two parties was the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. The Federalists thought this addition was unnecessary, because they believed that the Constitution would only have limitations on the government, instead of limiting the people. While the Federalists thought the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, Anti-Federalists explained how they thought the Constitution gave

Between the years of 1783 and 1791, there were continuities and discontinuities between the goals and viewpoints of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists were those who opposed the development of a strong government and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. They preferred for the power to remain between state and local governments. On the contrary, Federalists wanted a stronger national government and they were in favor of the ratification of the Constitution, in an attempt to help effectively manage the debt and tensions that were present as a result of the American Revolution. The Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777. In the Articles of Confederation, there was one

The federalists and anti-federalists were two opposing political parties during the time period of the ratification of the constitution. This process of ratifying the constitution was extremely difficult due to the dissent between the federalists and anti-federalists. The federalists, a northern based party mainly geared towards the upper class, supported the ratification of the constitution. The anti-federalists, a southern and western based party geared towards farmers, opposed the ratification of the constitution. The federalists recognized the issues in society were due to a weak national government, whereas the anti-federalists viewed the new government as too strong. This process of ratification was a group of debates and compromises to promote agreeance. During the ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists and anti-federalists debated over the need for a strong national government; but the Federalist party prevailed with slight amendments.

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.