Federalists And Anti-Federalism

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 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.

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).

During the ratification of the United States Constitution, many people feared certain things. The fear the citizens possessed came from the thoughts of what could alter their normal life, through the ratification of the Constitution. Fearing what was to come, occurred during the period of 1786 and 1792. Certain things that the American citizens were concerned about came from a superior or majority power making all political decisions, the lack of jurisdiction completed by the government, and the possible abuse of power from political figures. Not only did citizens fear these possible outcomes, but other political figures did as well. Federalist papers were drafted and letters were sent to explain possible concerns about the approvement of

The Federalist, who tended to be younger and better prepared?, supported the ratification of the Constitution because they believed the Constitution was good? (Creating A Government). In the “Federalist Papers: No. 51,” Madison and Hamilton, who were Federalists, were trying to convince people that the constitution properly balances power and that it is right. For example, the Hamilton and Madison are implying that the legislature will be divided into the 2, the house and senate when they say, “In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of government into distinct and separate departments.” (FEDERALIST PAPERS NO. 51). The authors continue to support their claim when they propose that power will be divided between both the federal and state governments when they say,“In the compound of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments.” (FPNO51). Contrastingly to the Federalists, on the other end of the spectrum, the Antifederalists, who tended to be older and more afraid of oppressive federal government, opposed ratification of the Constitution. The Antifederalists opposed ratification of the Constitution because they were afraid

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 Anti-Federalists saw the Constitution as an enabler of a stronger government to be corrupted by wealth and the power would be out

With the Revolutionary war only a couple years behind them, many sympathized with the Antifederalists. America had just fought a very bloody war. The last thing Americans wanted was another tyranny that sought to steal their rights. The Anti’s argued that the new system threatened the liberties of the people. They even suggested “that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that.” Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison summed up Antifederalist views, “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth." But perhaps the most compelling argument given by the Antifederalists, was that the omission of a Bill of Rights and the new government itself, was in direct opposition of the ideals they had just fought a war to secure. They argued that the Constitution created a distant government that didn’t feel the effects of their laws, much the same as the government they had just overthrown. It failed to secure individual liberties, as well as state rights. They argued that only state governments could fully “possess the knowledge of [the people’s] circumstances and their wants…” These arguments resonated with many Americans and even with men attending ratification conventions throughout the country. As Antifederalist arguments spread, Federalists realized that ratification of the Constitution would not be as easy as they

Before the construction of the current constitution, many citizens named the Anti-Federalists shared concerns on the new founded America turning into the situation in which they just broke free from. They feared the power of the people being diminished by the central government, leaving them without secured rights, and returning to the same instance experienced in England. In their time these worries were still fresh and strongly feared, and rightfully so. Anti-Federalists wanted to have a weak central government with the power lying within each state, primarily so each state could regulate its own taxes, thus, preventing the

It is June of 1789. Nearly a year has passed since the ratification of the Constitution. Imagine your children and wife waking you up and asking you what is for dinner. You are not sure what to say because you lost your farm due to paying off debts. This endures and then something tragic transpires. Your youngest child perishes. In the 1780s there were two diverse types of people with dissimilar lifestyles. These encompassed Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalists were the minority of the population at the time and are on behalf of making a stronger unified government by making a new structure of government. Anti-Federalists make up the majority of the population and want to

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.

It is clear to see that after our dire fight for independence that we need something more robust. We can all agree upon this, whether we stand behind the federalist or anti-federalist. It is the understanding of the Federalist men that ratifying the constitution would indeed be the best way to achieve this goal. However, it is understood that the anti-federalist would have a great deal to worry about if they did admittedly go through with this, for they believe that the power should lie within the states rather than in a much needed stronger central government as the Federalist proposed. The goal of all men is to create a government that will undyingly protect the unalienable rights given to use as humans. However, the means of doing so

It was until Shay’s Rebellion that everyone realized the need for the Articles of Confederation to be changed. The Massachusetts state legislature was able to resolve the matter, but it demonstrated that inability of Congress to act. (Lowi et al., 39) Realizing that it did not only take the states to stand together, but the central government needed to be able to resolves crises was a main factor to the Federalists. The strong central government appealed to those who realized that by having individual states combined to make a Confederation, the nation could go nowhere. Instead, by having each state with its own rules that are part of the rules established by the central government and the states have the power to enact more rules as an extension of the central government, the Federalists argued for the establishment of a strong central government.

The framing of a new Constitution was a period full of debate and disagreement between two groups, the Federalists and the Antifederalists. The Federalists were wealthy and well educated people; diplomats, farmers, and merchants involved in world market that believed in a central government that could regulate trade. On the other hand, Antifederalists were mostly common man, middle farmers, and artisans less involved in the world market. They feared a strong central government that might add up to their tax burden. This paper will contrast the Federalists and Antifederalists by primarily discussing their standing position during the framing and ratification of the Constitution, their opposing views on separation of powers and the Bill of Rights.