Compare And Contrast Federalist And Anti Federalists

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.

The Federalists didn’t really like the state having all the power and believed that the federal government should have more power. The Antifederalists believed that the federal government shouldn’t have a lot of power, so that our government doesn’t get take over. They also believed that the states should have, according to George Bryan,” all power.” Some people thought we should have kept the articles so that we have a stronger state government. The state government in the articles had most of the power, so they had their own taxes and their own little

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

Federalists wanted a strong Federal government, however the Democratic Republicans opposed it. The original members of the Democratic Republicans said that, “People would only be safe if ordinary people were in government.” They believed that the people would know what's right and they would make a lot of good decisions. The Federalists however wanted the government to be powerful. Hamilton wrote, “The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.” He is right because our founding fathers agreed that if the people were angels there would be no need for a government , guess what we are not angels so we will make mistakes. To help make the people make better decisions Hamilton believed they needed a government above them. The Democratic Republicans also wanted the states to have more power and not the Government, as you can imagine there were more disagreements.

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 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.

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.

The first matter that Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed on was that they both wanted a form of government. This means they both had a vision for this country. This vision was not the same as how what they lived before the American Independence; in fact, it was a vision that was different than anything came before. Sadly, the Federalists and the Anti- Federalists had different vision when forming a government. Federalists wanted a strong central government, and this meant unity for the country. They believed that this country should have the separation of powers and checks of balances to prevent a monarchy. The separation of powers is the

While both sides had many different views, they made compromises that ratified the Constitution. Federalists believed that to have our natural rights protected and to enforce laws, the National Congress held 3 different types of branches that would be the Legislative (this would contain the congress, house of representatives and senate), Executive (this would contain

Federalists were in favor of a stronger national government and the ratification of the Constitution to help properly manage the debt and tensions following the American Revolution. Thus, they decided that “only a well-educated group of elected officials should be trusted to make decisions for the good of all.” (Doc 3). Anti-federalists, on the other hand, opposed the creation of a stronger federal government and thus later opposed the ratification of the Constitution; they emphasized individual and state rights. They decided that “freedoms of citizens will not be trampled over by a strong national government.” As a result, they opposed the “rule of a few privileged individuals [overpowering] the will of average citizens.” (Doc

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.

The Federalists wanted “a centralized federal system and the ratification of the Constitution … who supported a broad interpretation” (Tindall, Shi A16). The Anti-Federalists “opposed the Constitution as a limitation on individual and states’ rights” (Tindall, Shi A3). The Bill of Rights allows the United States to implement national laws, and whatever is not said is left for the states to determine, which allows a basic equality across the states but different interpretations within them. The Bill of Rights allowed a federal and state government resulting in a compromise.