Anti-Federalists Vs Anti Federalist Analysis

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

After the Founding Fathers of America wrote our Constitution there was one more step they had to each achieve in order for it to go into effect: ratifying it. In order to ratify the Constitution nine out of the thirteen states had to agree to adopt it. The process of ratifying the Constitution turned into a debate between two groups: the Federalists and the Anti Federalist.

The Anti-Federalists could not make an effective campaign against the Federalists because of their intellectual inability, political skills, and social class. Most of the opponents of

The Federalists wanted to ratify the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists disagreed with the Federalists. Another one of the major issues between these two parties was the debate between the inclusion of The Bill of Rights. The Federalists felt like this whole thing was not necessary because they believed the Constitution as it limited the government not the people. The Anti-Federalists claimed that the Constitution gave the central government way too much power, and without the Bill of Rights the people would be at risk of oppression, which is cruel or unjust treatment.

Federalist The Anti-Federalists needed to keep our administration as it might have been. This implies the administration would be a government. Threatening vibe towards the administration would come to fruition if this somehow managed to happen. A solid focal government was needed by the Federalists alongside needing the constitution to be endorsed as snappy as could be allowed without altering it. Federalists additionally trusted that some force ought to be taken out of the states and put into the administration.

The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, had quite opposite views when it came to the constitution. They felt like the constitution would

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

Their advocacy for a system of checks and balances, division of powers among the branches of government, and the importance of a national bank laid the groundwork for the framework of modern democracy. Conversely, the Anti-Federalists, including notable figures like Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Samuel Adams, feared the concentration of power in a central government. They argued that a strong federal government would infringe upon the rights of states and individuals, leading to tyranny and oppression. The Anti-Federalists insisted on the

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

On the other hand, Anti-Federalists were against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Unlike the Federalists, many of the Anti-Federalists were not included in the deliberations on the new constitution; they were not selected as delegates to the constitutional convention. Anti-Federalists were in favor of a confederacy; a system where the central government exercises no control over subunit governments (i.e. states) and acts for the subunits. Therefore, their name, Anti-Federalists, is not a good depiction of what they actually supported. Unlike the Federalists, they Anti-Federalists did not have as much time to prepare and organize for the ratification debates because many of them were not included in the U.S. Constitutions

The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these

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.

Madison claimed that these factions could be stopped by electing representatives. These representatives would then put forth national interest ahead of factional interest. In the other essays, the Federalists foresaw the future of the country containing leaders from various competing interests and groups, for the Antifederalists believed this was to be primarily the farmers. Overall, the Federalists main points of discussion were a strong national government and commercial growth of the nation, along with financial policies that revolved around central banks.

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 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).