Differences And Similarities Between The Anti-Federalists And Anti-Federalists

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 and the Anti - Federalists played an indispensable part in the establishment of the American Constitution. Federalists were supporters of the constitution, while Anti federalist were against the ratification of the Constitution. Federalists believed in the idea of a larger heterogeneous republic whereas anti federalists wanted a small homogenous republic. Famous federalists like James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton are responsible for giving us paramount pieces of historic documents in the form of “the Federalist papers”. The Federalist papers were 85 documents urging the ratification of the US Constitution. Anti federalist side included people like Samuel Adams, George Mason and Patrick Henry, and they believed the Articles of Confederation should be altered rather than completely changed in the form of the Constitution. Concurring with the Federalist side, it is imperative to see that the Federalists’ argument was more viable, due to the fact that larger republics and “checks and balances” are useful tools in controlling a democracy. We can’t compare ourselves to the way Sparta and Athens operated. Our country would thrive more under a stronger national government rather than a stronger state government.

During the period between its proposal in September 1787 and ratification in 1789, the United States Constitution was the subject of numerous debates. The contending groups consisted of Federalists, those who supported ratification, and Anti-Federalists, those opposed to the constitution. Each group published a series of letters known as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. The Anti-Federalist papers objected to provisions of the proposed constitution while the Federalist Papers defended the rationale behind the document. Anti-Federalist objections included that; the United States was too extensive to be governed by a republic, the constitution

There exist similarities between both the federalists and the anti-federalists. Both felt that government was necessary because ‘men were not “angels”’ (Bryner, 1987). However, they disagreed on the size of government appropriate in a republic. The federalists wanted a large republic with a central government while the anti-federalists wanted a small republic with a state government. Both the federalists and anti-federalists were liberals and republicans. Republicanism refers to a political theory of government that advocates for the participation of the people for the common good of the community (Rawls, 1993). It focuses on the importance of virtue. Virtue is important because it encourages ‘personal restraint and willingness to contribute to the common good’ (Bryner, 1987, p. 2).

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

The Anti-Federalists favor a central government similar to the Articles of Confederation. Not all of the Anti-Federalists think identical; Some prefer to stay with the Articles of Confederation and a slightly stronger central government with the states in power would work for America better others prefer to compromise and only adding the Bill of Rights. "The objects of jurisdiction…, are so numerous, and the shades of distinction between civil causes are oftentimes so slight, that it is more than probable that the state judicatories would be wholly superseded; for in contests about jurisdiction, the federal court, as the most powerful, would ever prevail." In the Centinel No. 1 the Anti-Federalists tell the people that slightly changing the judicial system or the law can change everything. “It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. — The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation.” In Brutus I the Anti-Federalists input their opinions on how government does not need to be run by one big power but by smaller powers held in the

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-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

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

In America today there are many political parties which include the Democrats and the Republicans. The beginning of political parties started in 1787 with the federalist, then later on the anti-federalist in 1796. Alexander Hamilton was the leader of the federalist party. Thomas Jefferson was the leader of the anti-federalist; who called themselves the Democratic-Republicans. Our first president, George Washington warned us about having parties and the danger of them. However, "not until Congress debated the ratification and implementation of Jay’s Treaty with Great Britain did two political parties clearly emerge"; the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. Today the most influential parties are the Democrats and the Republicans. These parties win all of the presidential elections as of today. Political parties formed because the United States was beginning to grow and expand. Many people had different opinions and so political parties were formed. People were concerned about the how the new government was going to be organized.

Anti-Federalists were strong believers that states should be able to manage their own revenue and spend their money as they, the state, felt necessary. Anti-Federalsits proposed and favored the Bill of Rights, whereas Federalists were against it. Federalists believed that economic struggles and overall national weaknesses were caused by many individual fiscal and monetary policies that acted in different ways. The Federalists were successful in their effort to get the Constitution ratified by all thirteen states, and later established a party known as the Federalist Party, which backed the views of Hamilton and was a strong force in the early United States. After the ratification of the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists worked within the Constitutions bounds, as they expected the Federalists to do as well, holding Federalists to the pledge that the Constitution granted the national government only the powers that were specifically listed. Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very strong yet different views and goals on the position on monetary policy, position on the constitution, and the overall goal - serving as official laws for the

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 and Anti-federalists shared the common beliefs of John Locke’s Enlightenment ideals, but their opinions about government were different. Both parties had their own visions of the new Constitution and how it would support believes on how the government should be withheld. At this time the States had a very weak government with very limited power which was a disagreement that the Federalists and Anti-federalized butted heads on. The amount of power or the absence of power was the disagreement between these political parties. As in result, The Federalists and Anti-federalists argued on the forming of the New Constitution.

One of the great debates in American history was over the approval of the Constitution in 1787. Those who supported the Constitution were known as Federalist, a person who advocates and supports a system of government in which several states unite under a Central authority. Those who opposed the approval of the Constitution in favor of small localized government were known as Anti Federalists. Both the Federalists and the Anti Federalists were concerned with the protection of liberty. However, they disagreed over whether or not a strong national government would preserve or eventually destroy the liberty of the American people.