Compare And Contrast The Three Shortcomings Of The Anti-Federalists

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.

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.

America needed a new government since the Articles of Confederation had failed. The Articles lacked a strong Central government. The Constitution was made to be a superior document compared to the Articles of Confederation. Federalists believed that the Constitution was created to provide a strong national government, while Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution was taking away the powers of the people.

One conflicting point between the anti - federalists and the federalists was their views on government control. The anti - federalists were strong for power in the states rather than power in a central government. On the other hand, the federalists thought that a strong central government and weak state governments were the best way to go. The idea of then changing the government brought more differences between the two. On the anti-federalists side in Anti-Federalist Paper 7 they said, “The time in which the constitution or government of a nation undergoes any particular change, is always interesting and critical.” They were stating that changing the government control would bring much confusion to the people. They

During a time of extreme change, the states were looking for something that would help them govern themselves in a manner better than the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution of the United States was drafted in 1787 and before it could become law, it had to be ratified by nine of the thirteen states. There was quite a bit of disagreement when it came to the Constitution and how it constructed the new government. In an attempt to garner votes for the acceptance of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton and other Framers began to write essays in the local newspapers praising it. These letters were called the Federalist Papers. In contrast, a group of men who were opposed to the ratification of the Constitution and the new form of government wrote letters called the Anti-Federalist Papers. This is considered by some to be the first two political parties in the United States. These two sets of essays helped to persuade the people of the United States to accept the Constitution and the new

The anti federalists favored a government that granted more power to the states because they also believed in an economy based on agriculture and farming. Additionally, they thought that there was no need to make a Constitution, and that the Articles of Confederation should be improved, not replaced. And fearing that the government would abuse their power and neglect the rights of the people, they were against a strong central government.

The Federalists supported the United States Constitution. They supported removing powers from the states and allowing the powers to go simply into the hands of the U.S. national government. Federalists were pleased with the idea of dividing the powers among the different branches of government, such as the legislative, executive, and judicial courts. Moreover, the anti-federalists believe that the necessary political powers need to remain within the states. They want the legislative branch to hold more power than the executive branch. The anti-federalists were uneasy at the thought of having a strong central government. They formed an ideation that there would be a probability the government may or may not become a dictator or tyrant. These people against the Constitution believed that a possible Bill of Rights needed to be the new and improved addition to the United States Constitution.

The anti-federalists believed that a stronger, central government would result in a tyrannical rule similar to the one that the country just fought to be freed from. The anti-federalists also believed that the states would be under minded by the federal government and threaten the liberty

Anti-federalists and federalists were formed when the Constitution required ratification from 9 states. The federalists intended affect was to grant secure rights for every American. The anti-federalists didn’t believe that the Constitution granted right to everyone and there was no point in accepting the Constitution if it had to be amended. (¶2 Reasons for not signing the Constitution) The anti-federalists wanted to maintain the power of the states because they thought that a strong central government would control too much of the citizens’ rights. The effect that the Federalists wanted was a strong central government for a new country, they eventually won the fight and managed to ratify the Constitution.

Anti-Federalists were a diverse coalition of people who opposed ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the greatest threat to the future of the United States was having a strong national government because that threatens state power and the rights of common people. The Anti-Federalists offered three objections to the Constitution. First, they claimed that a strong national government would destroy states’ rights. Second, they argued that delegates to the Constitutional Convention were sneaky because they did things they did not have the authority to do and had not been charged to do. Third, they argued that the new system of government resembled a monarchy because of its concentration of power.

In "The Powers and Dangerous Potentials of His Elected Majesty,” Anti-Federalist outlines the latent problems of wielding a powerful, yet ambiguous, position in society. Anti-Federalists draw upon debates of human nature to show that many would not willingly accept a peaceful transition of power. The writer states that the position of president would be the acme of any man's life, "this man may not have the means of supporting, in private life, the dignity of his former station (“The Power,” 1787).” This paper is aiming to compare and contrast two papers from each side of the debate and to examine their relations with the transition of the modern presidency.

In a debate between a Federalist and an anti-Federalist over the ratification of the Constitution, many opposing views would arise. The Federalist’s would advocate the ratification of the Constitution in order to manage the debt and lingering tensions that followed the American Revolution. They believed that a nation as large as the U.S. needed a strong, central government in order to be able to function properly. The Federalist would argue that the ratification of the Constitution would allow the national government to better collect funds to pay off debt, create a uniform currency, and establish and maintain a professional military for defense. Federalist’s believe that in order for this nation to be successful, it must rely on commercialism

The Federalists were the southern planters and those who involved in trade. The anti-federalists were the people who were showing interests in business but not the economy. The Federalists were the ones who wanted the ratification over the Constitution while the anti-federalists did not. After much debate, they were able to come to a compromise to include the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. When the new Constitution was drafted, it led the nation to a debate. People were shocked about the changes and wanted to amend the Articles of Confederation. They were afraid of a tyranny, like how they were ruled in Britain. At this time, the Americans had just fought for their freedom from the tyrannical rule of the King of England. Thus, all their efforts will have gone to waste. As stated above, the Federalists were supporting the Constitution, which referred to the power between states and the government. James Madison claimed that the Constitution was less dangerous than it seemed because the separation from the states and government protected the people from tyrannical rule. In the famous Federalist Papers No. 51, Madison insisted that the division of powers and system of checks and balances would protect Americans from the tyranny. In paper No. 10, he wrote that there was no need to fear factions because there will not be enough power to form them. Hamilton defended that the Constitution is there to serve citizens’

Though it seemed that the federal government meant well in the Constitution, they failed to recognize that they were very greedy. The Anti-Federalists recognize this and try to preserve some powers for not only the states but also for the citizens of the United States. They refused the creation of the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was added..

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, there were a number of opposing opinions about how best to resolve the problems with the Articles of Confederation, but ultimately, the fifty-five delegates present at the convention fell into one of two groups: federalists or anti-federalists. The Federalists wanted to dispose of the Articles of Confederation altogether and ratify the Constitution in order to better unite the thirteen states and form a stronger central government. Conversely, the Anti-Federalists opposed this new Constitution on the basis that it gave too much power to the federal government, so they supported amending the Articles of Confederation instead of drafting new legislation. While those who did not want to ratify the Constitution were grouped together under the title of “Anti-Federalist”, delegates had different reasons for holding this stance; one faction believed that stronger government threatened the sovereignty of the states, another thought this new government would too closely model the despotism of Great Britain, and another feared that this new government would threaten individual liberties (The Great). One particular section of the proposed Constitution that Anti-Federalists were concerned with was Article III that outlined the judicial power of the United States and advocated a strong central court system. Anti-Federalists feared too much power would be granted to the Supreme Court of the United States and limit the power of state courts.