Federalist Vs Antifederalist Essay

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).

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.

In modern America, many citizens hold to the notion that the Constitution was adopted unanimously, without debate or disagreement. Not only is this not the case, the debate and disagreement that took place during the institution of the governing articles for the newly formed country are ultimately responsible for the system we have in place today as the concerns and counterpoints raised in the discussion were more crucial to the successful continuance of stability in the nation than any unanimous decision. Given the apparent import of such discussion, it is therefore prudent to examine the original points of contention to determine their merit and to further ensure that the concerns originally raised have been addressed sufficiently.

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

A key concern the federalist’s held since the start of the war with parting from England is that citizens of America could ultimately divided against each other if their voice is not heard with the new form of government that

In the late 1700s, the United States had began to split into two factions: Federalists and Antifederalists. Factions are groups of citizens united by a common interest. The reasoning behind the differing views of how the government works across the world was best said by Locke “Men are equal in a natural sense, but society establishes many dimensions that are unequal”. (Barbour and Wright, 2017). In the states, Federalists wanted a strong central government while anti-federalists wanted a weak one. “The Georgians, for example, wanted a strong central authority to provide military protection for their huge, underpopulated state against the Creek Confederacy; Jerseymen and Connecticuters wanted to escape from economic bondage to New York; the Virginians hoped to establish a system which would give that great state its rightful place in the councils of the republic” (Roche, 800). The one thing they agreed on was having George Washington as president. George Washington tried to be a neutral leader of the United States and suggested for the states to stay together rather than divide into factions. “Thomas Jefferson is credited as stating: “North and South will hang together if they have you to hang on””(Jamison, 2016).

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.

Then there were Anti- Federalists who believed that the bulk of duties should continue to be left to each state's own discretion, so that there would be no misrepresentation of the people it governed. It's left to say that neither side saw eye to eye, but would eventually reach a "compromise", the Federalists would institute their version of the Constitution which had a clear notion of Central Government and it's duties. The Anti-Federalists would receive an additional amendment to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights), which would protect the personal liberties they were convinced a Central Government would revoke. Both sides seemed fairly satisfied with the outcome, though there was still fear of that popular tyranny from the outside. But the act of tyranny they should have feared was their own, for the Framer's motives for creating a new constitution was really protecting the few (the rights of the Wealthy) against the many (the non-elite).

The early years of the Constitution of the United States were full of political strife. The two prominent political ideals were complete opposites. The Jeffersonian Republicans were focused on giving power to the people and maintaining a pastoral economy, while the Federalists supported the control of the government by the elite class, and maintaining “positive” democracy. Both parties feared the influence and effect the other party would have on the public. In Linda K. Kerber's article, “The Fears of the Federalists”, the major concerns Federalists held in the early 19th century are described. Ever since the war with and separation from England, the citizens of America were seen to be continually drive to “patriotic rebellion” as a way to

The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these

My thesis is that the plan was to amend the articles of confederation, but there was too much wrong with it, because it gave too much federal power. The Federalist wanted a strong central government, and the Anti-federalist wanted more power in the states. The articles of confederation are the original constitution of the US, ratified in 1781, which was replaced by the US Constitution in 1789(p.48-49). The Federalist are the supporters of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The Anti-Federalist are the opponents of ratification of the U.S Constitution in 1787 and 1788. The biggest compromise that was made would be the federalist including agreeing to include bill of rights in the Constitution. We need a new constitution because of inequality because in the 1st amendment it say there is freedom of religion and speech, expression, assembly and the right of petition. But I doesn’t give freedom on access. Also, because it was outdated was written in 1787. The concerns the Anti-Federalist had were on Article II of the Constitution. Article II “established an entirely new concept in government—an elected executive power.”(p.575) Also the Constitution did not equally divide all power with the three branches of government. The Federalist didn’t have any concerns, but what they wanted was for the Constitution to pass. Another thing they wanted was a strong government. The plans that were involved with the compromise were the

The debate over the effectiveness of the Articles of Confederation has been a long lasting one. In order to create a document that would adequately protect the American people and their interests’ the Founding Fathers embarked on a journey to create a document that would address all of the discrepancies found within the Articles of Confederation Therefore, the purpose of this paper is threefold. First, to compare and contrast the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787. Second, to analyze the drafting of the Constitution. Third, to compare and contrast the debate over ratification of the Constitution between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

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.