Tyqueze Walker
September 15, 2015
Federalist Vs Anti-Federalist
Mr. Storing makes a sequence of valuable points about why we should take note to what the Anti-Federalists had to say, both for reasons of historical understanding, and, perchance surprisingly, because of the continued relevance of their arguments. If federalism is understood to highlight the divided nature of power inside a nation, between states on the one hand and a central authority on the other, then it was the Anti-Federalists who preferred such a division. They were more the defenders of the power of the states. The Federalists advocated the concentration of greater power in the hands of a central government even at the expense of the states. Thus, when we hear people who favor states’ rights today refer to themselves as Federalists and suggest that they are merely returning to the original understanding of the Founders, they are right and wrong, right in that they are small "f" federalists, but wrong about the federalist position prevailing in the Constitution. The absurdity is that when the Federalists won, the harsh results was that federalism had lost.
…show more content…
Storing makes the fact that it is the very nature of a political process like the one that fashioned the Constitution for reasoning and compromising to occur. The Anti-Federalists may not have "prevailed" in the debate, but the ideas and beliefs the shared would still have played an important role in shaping the final document. In much the way, a negotiation between a Corporation and its unions may be "accomplished" by one side, but it would still not have received everything it started out demanding for. Were you to look only at the final agreement and only through the lens of one side having "won", you could deceive yourself into believing that the agreement was solely their product. This is obviously false but it is somewhat the approach that has traditionally been taken to the
With a failing, and week Articles of Confederation loosely uniting the state, delegates from each states set out to revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they made an extremely polarizing Constitution, which was debated on and revised in the years to come. In these debates were parties, with two entirely different political ideologies and philosophies. The Federalists believed that they should ratify the Constitution now, and they would amend the Constitution later. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution shouldn’t be ratified, because it didn't guarantee the citizen’s rights and gave too much power to the government.
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.
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
Thus, they limited its power, which hindered its role within the states. Federalists were generally property owners who saw themselves and those of their social class as those most fit to govern the country. Anti-Federalists,
In the late 1700’s a debate broke out about the Constitution and its ratification. The debate was between two groups of Americans, Federalists, who supported the ratification, and Anti-Federalists, who opposed it. Federalists supported the constitution’s ratification because they wanted a strong government to rely on, however, Anti-Federalists opposed the constitution because they wanted more individual power and a weaker central government. Anti-Federalists were Americans who opposed the Constitution and its ratification for various reasons including their fear of individual rights being lost.
The Battle for the Ratification of the Constitution “But a Constitution of Government once changed for Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” - John Adams, Second President of the United States. The Constitutional Constitution was called to write a better plan of government to bring together the United States of America. Although it was a necessary plan many Anti- federalists refused to ratify it out of fear of losing the power they had.
After Shay’s Rebellion and the nation on the brink of bankruptcy it was clear that the Articles of Confederation would not be adequate to preserve the nation. So began the great battle for the balance between order and freedom. The main point of dispute between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in the battle over the ratification of the Constitution surrounded the question of what powers and rights were required in order to insure the security and liberty of the nation. The Federalists advocated that a strong central government was needed, which was supported by the failure of the Articles of Confederation. However the Anti-Federalists were determined on keeping the sovereignty of the states and by doing so also retaining their secured political freedom.
• Federalists support of a strong central authority was a key reason the young nation was able to sustain itself in the early days. Although, the ambition of this party may have carried them too far, if left unchecked. With the federalist’s position, the federal government may have become too powerful. It could have curbed the rights of citizens. An example of this in fact happen during the Adams administration to somewhat of a degree.
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.
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 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
2.) When it comes to freedom of religion, the federalists were probably right about separation of church and state. However, while the federalists believed in a strong national government to create unity, the anti-federalists were right when they suggested that state and local governments should be stronger. The more power that is given to smaller and more localized forms of government, the better the government represents the people in that area. Diversity is lost when a single national government is overpowering, and the population as a whole becomes unsatisfied as the majority of people won’t agree with the same ideology. This is why, for good reason, the anti-federalists were worried when the states started to lose their identity and merge into “The United States of America.” Patrick Henry realized this when he said “I am no longer a Virginian, but an American.”
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 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.
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