Anti Federalists Pros And Cons

According to Eric Foner in his book “Give Me Liberty!”, there were major arguments against the Constitution put forth by the anti-federalists. The anti-federalists were opponents of ratification who insisted that the Constitution shifted the balance between liberty and power too far in the direction of the latter. Basically their main belief was that a too powerful central government is a threat to liberty and will continue to influence American political culture.

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.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” (Madison Fed 51). Madison’s Federalist Papers outlined how James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay believed the government should be and needed to be organized and run, or government would be destroyed. Federalist 10 identified the need for two factions, where the ambitions of one faction could be counteracted by the ambition of the second faction. The fear of the tyranny of the king of Britain lay fresh in the minds of the founders, and did not want to be governed by the tyranny of a majority. Two methods were outlined in Federalist 10 to cull this fear. The first option 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

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 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

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

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.

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

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.

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 era (1789-1801), was just a period in the American history in which the entire American politics was extensively dominated by the Federalist Party. It was in this era that the constitution of the United States was adopted as well as the expansion of the state government come about (Hartz 11). The foreign entanglement that evolved between Great Britain and France, the affirmation of a stronger centralized state government as well as the creation of the political parties was some of the important events of this period.

While these Anti-federalists had some valid points they were not well-organized or efficient in letting their views be shared to the general public. This cost them dearly in the end. In closing, the Constitution was very essential to the make-up of our country. It determined what form of government would be used as well as its power and the power of the people. While the Federalists did win in that all the states ratified the document, they also compromised to the Anti-federalists and a Bill of Rights was created additionally. This pleased both sides, the Anti-federalists and Federalists alike, as this document protected and procured a great many of the rights and privileges we enjoy today. The constitution is powerful document that was well worth the verbal battle of many years. As it is with most things, the Constitution means more to this country because of how hard we had to fight in many ways to obtain such a document.

A mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government with regional governments in a singular political system