Analysis Of The Article 'The Antifederists Were Right'

The Anti-Federalists argued that their form of government was more effective. They argued many points that were reasonable. Brutus wrote that he feared that our government would be controlled by a group of elites, and he thought that these elites would abuse the people’s rights by just doing what would only benefit them. Brutus thought once the elites started running our country, that they would be in power for a long time and no one could change their minds on certain views. (Brutus 1).

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 exist similarities between both the federalists and the anti-federalists. Both felt that government was necessary because ‘men were not “angels”’ (Bryner, 1987). However, they disagreed on the size of government appropriate in a republic. The federalists wanted a large republic with a central government while the anti-federalists wanted a small republic with a state government. Both the federalists and anti-federalists were liberals and republicans. Republicanism refers to a political theory of government that advocates for the participation of the people for the common good of the community (Rawls, 1993). It focuses on the importance of virtue. Virtue is important because it encourages ‘personal restraint and willingness to contribute to the common good’ (Bryner, 1987, p. 2).

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

n the history of the United States, the Anti-federalists were the individuals who opposed the implementation of a central federal government which would seek to oversee different operations in the country along with the ratification of the constitution. Instead, they advocated that power ought to remain within the hands of the local and state governments. Conversely, the Federalists advocated for a stronger government that would oversee the operations of all states. They also wanted the ratification of the existing constitution in order to help the government in managing its debts along with the tensions that were developing in particular states. The Federalist movement was formed by Alexander Hamilton, and it functioned as the first

The most politicized debate in American history has been the arguments made by the Federalists and the Antifederalists over the ideas and powers stated within the United States Constitution. A large number of authors who write about the debates between these two political groups present the ideas of the Federalist and Antifederalist as separate, opposing ideologies about how the U.S. Constitution should either stay the same for the sake of the country or be amended to grant border rights to the public and states. To begin a paper about how this assumption of the two factions always being at odds, first there should be an explanation about the Federalists’ and Antifederalists’ main arguments. The Virginia debate over ratification will be the used as the platform to present the details of their arguments. After those two main objectives are complete, the presentation of information found on the topics that the two parties had arguments between themselves over the true future of the Constitution, and that certain Federalists and Antifederalist shared certain ideas about the problems this Constitution could cause or solve for the United States. To conclude those ideas, a presentation of the political figures of this time period will be used to understand the similarities and differences between the parties. Towards the end of the paper, there will be an explanation of how the ideas of the two parties, mostly Antifederalists, have led to the creation of amendments added to the

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 Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution while the Anti Federalists were against it. This boiled down to simple beliefs held by both groups. Anti Federalists believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government and left state governments powerless. Anti Federalists were in favor of a weaker central governments and stronger local state governments. They believed that central government was too far removed from the people, and that the nation was too large, for it to serve them on a local state basis. This resulted in the fear that people’s voices would be taken away; this fear of oppression was only increased by the fact that the Constitution didn’t include a Bill of Rights. However, Federalists believed that a strong central government, accompanied by the Constitution, was needed after the Article of Confederation failed or the nation wouldn’t survive. In the eyes of the Federalists, a Bill of Rights was not needed because the Constitution did not put any limits on the rights of the citizens; however

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 second major concern of the Anti-Federalists was the power of Congress. It worried the Anti-Federalists a great deal that the Constitution would grant Congress the power to tax in "necessary and proper" circumstances (Main 122). Not only could Congress pass new taxes without the consent of the people or state governments, the Anti-Federalist also felt that the Congress would have control over the judiciary branch. If Congress had influence over the judicial system, what recourse would the state have against unfair legislation?

The Anti-Federalist party was made up of people who, for the most part, lived in the country. They were opposed to developing a federal government, and they did not want to ratify the Constitution, which, they claimed, threatened each free person’s liberites, until the authors included the Bill of Rights. (This granted individual rights of citizens. The Anti-Federalists wanted to write down these so that they could not be taken away from the people by the government like England had done.) Instead, they wanted the state governments to keep the power to prevent monarchies and dictatorships. Famous members of this party were Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Mercy Otis Warren, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and James Monroe. They favored the Articles of Confederation. However, the Articles of Confederation had a few flaws: if a law was to pass, it would need a majority rule (9/13); it lacked a court system (nationally); and it was missing an executive branch. The Bill of Rights was appreciated because they wanted to make sure that individual rights could not be taken away. The Anti-Federalists may not have been a group that agreed with one another all the time, but as their opinions varied, more rights were thought of and protected. For example, one part of the group held the view that the sovereignty of states could be endangered

(Document 2) This quote illustrates that there was no way to prevent the branches (executive, judicial, legislative) from abusing their powers. The anti-federalists feared what this strong central government would become. Reasonably, if the constitution was ratified, the federalists would have endless control. The anti federalists feared the government would become a monarchy. Perhaps the biggest argument was mentioned in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, “it is the opinion of this convention that certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of the commonwealth….powers not expressly delegated by the constitution… are reserved to several states.” (Document 6) This quote states that the powers that were not given to the original constitution would now be given to the states. Basically, if there was any right or law not originally in the constitution the states were given the right to adjust and look after it.

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 argument between Federalists and Anti-Federalists might seem long gone to American citizens, but still their philosophical foundations shape the teams, scope and size of the battlefield. These philosophies go back to two lone men, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Both fought aggressively for a government based on their ideas, and both did make portions of the now-standing American government. This essay will outline the political, social and economic philosophies of both men, how their philosophies influenced the government today, and a closing opinion.

Federalism was an inevitable and paramount mechanism to creation the of the Union. Therefore, it is acceptable that its governing principles would define and refine a majority of the nation’s history. Shaping the government, laws, and politics of the current and future generations during the creation of the Constitution, federalism permanently altered the life of every American. Federalism and the Constitution were derived from a similar ideal: endurance of free society had to be preserved by a sense of unity that acted as a safeguard against prevalent dangers, advanced the common good while still maintaining responsiveness to the diversity of the nation (Wechsler, 1954). The Constitution established a central government that possessed the capacity to interpret its