Analysis Of The Anti-Federalist

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.

When the Constitution of the Untied States was written, there was not a clear cut and dry answer as to what was to go into the document. Many of the articles and clauses of the Constitution were debated by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. One topic that was debated during the drafting of the Constitution and even after the Constitution was signed was the formation and powers of the Senate.

As an original Federalist from the pre-Constitutional era, I am grateful for having had the opportunity to witness the way that our ideas have achieved our hopes or failed to do so. It has also been depressing to see that some of what has been transpiring in your most recent history reflects human behavior that we had assumed was beneath legislators. When we debated the most appropriate safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, for example, we focused on preventing future recurrence of some of the same tendencies of powerful majorities. We understood that a democratic republic is safer in that regard than a simple democracy; and we understood the need to protect at least one chamber of Congress from perpetual majority domination. At the time, we thought that the only concern was that we needed mechanisms like filibuster and cloture to provide some protection against the obvious potential consequences of a nation dominated by the rule of the majority.

Political parties had not existed until the Federalists and Anti-Federalists came along. These two parties had very different ideas on how our government should be ran. A federalist is a member of the Federalist Party, which was the first American political party who agreed with change to the constitution allowing tariffs and a national bank. This party existed from the early 1790s to 1816. An Anti-federalist is a person who opposed the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 who then allied with Thomas Jefferson's Anti-federal Party, which opposed extension of the powers of the federal Government. Each of these parties view the constitution differently and would disagree often in the same way our two political parties do today. These two

The Federalist believed that there should be a strong central government . The Anti-Federalist believed in less power in government and more in the people and to have our rights guaranteed. Based on the Bill of Rights and the way it was interpreted the Anti-Federalists were right.

Two groups—Federalists and Antifederalists—had opposing views about the newly proposed Constitution and on how to construct a new form of government effectively. The Federalists, on one hand, desired a strong national government and the government run by educated citizens. The Federalists believed that it wasn’t necessary for the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights because the government would already have the duty to protect the rights of the people with what the Constitution already offered on its own plan of government.On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists did not agree with the Constitution because they believed that it should have a Bill of Rights, and because they feared that giving more power to the central government would take

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.

I can only imagine how American colonists felt following the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783. While this was a grand victory in American history, the colonists had much to do to resemble the democratic system that we see today. In 1786, Federalists began publishing their papers to local newspapers in regards to their desire for a stronger central government. Federalists wanted a swift ratification of the Constitution in order to resolve many of the states’ issues at the time. These problems mostly stemmed from lack of funds due to the governments inability to tax and also because the current state legislatures needed a system to regulate the power abuses from many of its elected officials. They were opposed, however, by a group know as the Anti-Federalists who wanted to maintain stronger states rights and who feared tyrannical leadership. As we know today, the Federalist’s wishes won the majority of the negotiations that were being debated at the time. The Federalists knew that there was a void left after the Revolutionary War that resulted in a lack of unity, a weak central government, and required a system of checks and balance of each branch of

The real dilemma the Anti-Federalists had with the constitution, when the constitution was signed it did not contain a Bill of Rights to protect citizen’s rights. The Anti- Federalist feared a national government would strip citizens of their individual rights. The Anti-Federalists did not want a repeat of the Revolutionary War.

The major points of contention for the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were relatively simple. The Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution which would allow for a strong national government and weaker state governments. They believed that a large republic would be best in order to protect individual liberty. They also believed that a bill of rights was unnecessary. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists were opposed to the constitution because they wanted the states to have more power than the federal government. They feared a very strong national government and wanted a bill of rights to protect basic rights of the people.

Since the creation of American government, conflicting beliefs have arisen on how the government should be maintained. The building blocks of American government were created from ongoing conflict between the Federalists and the Anti Federalists. The Federalists advocated that the federal courts should have limited jurisdiction. At the same token, Federalists felt that federal courts were necessary to provide checks and balances on the power of the other two branches of government. Moreover, the Federalists believed the federal courts would protect citizens from governmental abuse, and solidifying the pretense that Americans are free individuals. On the posting spectrum stood the Anti Federalists. The Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution

The document was ratified by 9 out of the 13 states. To generate support for ratification The Federalist was published. In the Federalist, Alexander Hamilton argued that the there was a perfect balance of liberty and power created by the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers Ten and Fifty-One were the ideal papers written by Madison to support th¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬e ratification of the Constitution. Out of all the federalist papers, these are two of the most important federalist papers. So what were the federalist papers? They were 85 essays written by three gentlemen: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay that explained particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. Alexander Hamilton goes on to be the first treasury secretary, James Madison goes on to be the fourth president and John Jay the first chief justice in US history. So what was the purpose of these papers? Well, they were written to gain support for the US Constitution, especially in New York. While many people might see it as inevitable, the Constitution was a revolutionary step. Because of the revolutionary nature of the new constitution, arguments were necessary to rationalize it. Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York were the states critical to the success or failure of the Constitution. Of these four states, New York by far was the state where the success of the constitution was in the most doubt. Quickly, Alexander Hamilton decided that a massive propaganda campaign was necessary in New York, more than in any other state. So with the help of James Madison and John Jay, he published several essays in different newspapers in New York. There is really little

The founding of the American government is often portrayed as being a fairly effortless transition after the bitter fight that was the Revolutionary war. This, however, is extremely inaccurate as it took years of discussion and revision to create a system that benefited the American people. The Constitution was crucial to this and ended up separating the country into the Federalist and Antifederalist parties. In order to convince both the public and their counterparts of their side each party wrote a series of documents explaining their opinions. They became known as the Federalist and Antifederalist papers and were important fundamental components to the Constitution’s ratification. The Federalist and

The Federalist Society is believed to exert a powerful influence. Despite its protestations that it is little more than a debating society, media from across the political spectrum agree that the organization carries tremendous clout. The Washington Times' Insight magazine identified the group as the "single most influential organization in the conservative legal world” (Wagner, 1998). An article in Washington Monthly identified the Society as "quite simply the best-organized, best-funded, and most effective legal network operating in this country” (Landay, 2000).