Compare And Contrast Federalist And Anti Federalists

These different views on government made many people think hard on what type of government they wanted. In the end, the Federalist’s point of view won. Today, this type of government still exists. It made one of the

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 exists a similarity between both the federalists and the anti-federalists. Both felt that government was necessary because ‘men were not “angels”’ (Bryner, Public Virtue and the Roots of American Government, 1987). However, they disagree on the size of government and the republic. The federalists wanted a large republic with a central government while the anti-federalist wanted a small republic with a state government. In this essay, I generally agree with the statements except the part where federalists were republicans because they envisioned the commonweal of the national community. The weakness of this argument is that there may be a false impression that the candidate is truly virtuous. Thus, when he becomes the national government,

The Constitution changed the United States as a whole country. Not only was it a powerful, extremely important document created to represent the United State’s Government in 1788, but it is able to still apply to today’s society. There were two different ruling political groups when the document was created, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. These two parties had extremely different views on how the country should be run and by who.

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

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

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

During the 1800 -1900 centuries there were different ideas that caused a division through the United States. These two parties were the federalist and the anti- federalists.The federalist were led by Alexander Hamilton and James Adams.while the anti federalists were led Patrick Henry and Sam Adams. Each of these party had different ideas on how government should be governed. The anti federalists feared a strong federal government they mainly wanted to focus on the state's right, while the federalists were for a strong central government and favored a decentralized national government. Yet each of these ideas and debates lead to the formation of the party system. Thus the federalist vs. anti federalist debate over the ratification of constitution

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.

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 Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were created in response to the United States Constitution. In 1787, the Second Continental Congress called for a federal convention. This meeting in Philadelphia came to create the U.S Constitution. It originally was held to revise the Articles of Confederation, but due to the mindsets of many proponents present at the convention, like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and the vision of creating a new government rather than fixing the old one, the United States Constitution was formed. Once this was sent to congress it was submitted to the states for ratification. In response, many articles and letters were submitted to the public criticizing the proposition. These articles and letters are where the Anti-Federalist papers are derived from. Although there was opposition to the Constitution, many were in its favor. In response to these criticizing papers, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote papers in the constitutions defense. These were come to be known as the Federalist papers. Two papers in particular, Federalist 51 and Anti--Federalist 51, are written on the topic of checks and balances and how this relates to a separation of powers within the national government. These arguments were successful due to their primary points of contention and strong arguments proposed.

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

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

The Federalists and Antifederalists disagreed on the best way to govern the citizens; arguing between having the power in the central or state government. The Federalists believed that in order to promote the common good there needed to be a strong national government, while still allocating some power to the states. The Anti-Federalists believed there should not be a strong central government because it would be too large for all of the people to be properly represented. Economic and social issues ultimately shape the political landscape within the United States due to the various viewpoints and beliefs many citizens have within this country. For example, movements such as Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter have divided the country to minorities being on one side and the government on the other side.

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.