Federalists Vs. Anti-Federalist Debate

The Constitution had changes the United States greatly. The document, written in 1788, was a powerful representation of the government back then, and amazingly, it’s still in play today. During the 1700’s, the first political parties formed over disagreements in the government and the constitution. The two parties were the Federalists and Antifederalists. Federalists made up the people who felt that the stronger government was best for the country and supported the Constitution. The federalists had felt as if different “fiscal and monetary policies” were a weakness in the national economy. Also, the Federalists supported banking("Anti-Federalist vs Federalist"). Federalists wanted to fight for stronger governments, managing the country’s debt

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.

Since America’s early founding in 1776 we have been a country of wide ranging political views. Our first two political parties were the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. These two parties changed how people think about government issues, political opinions, and the topics that drove the growth of our nation. Federalist and Anti-Federalist split the nation with beliefs, important politicians, and support from the people.

During the 1800 -1900 centuries there were different ideas that caused a division through the United States. These two parties were the federalist and the anti- federalists.The federalist were led by Alexander Hamilton and James Adams.while the anti federalists were led Patrick Henry and Sam Adams. Each of these party had different ideas on how government should be governed. The anti federalists feared a strong federal government they mainly wanted to focus on the state's right, while the federalists were for a strong central government and favored a decentralized national government. Yet each of these ideas and debates lead to the formation of the party system. Thus the federalist vs. anti federalist debate over the ratification of constitution

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

For AP United States history I chose the federalist and anti federalist compare and contrast that impacted America to the first party system because the past actions have affected us in the present. We analyze the past to find the foundations of present day political problems. I relate this to the SLO by committing time to community to present the past to the community they can understand how our country was developed and where the problems came from. I can urge them to understand why seeing the past is important to relate to the present. I overcame the obstacles in the completion of this assignment by reading and researching on comparing and contrasting the federalist and anti federalist to understand their point of views and why they had

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-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

Richard Henry Lee is another Anti-Federalist who displays his views throughout his article. Lee discusses some arguments, but the main point of his article is about how the Constitution came to be and the problems associated with it. He says "by making tender, suspension, and paper money laws, have given just cause of uneasiness to creditors. By these and other causes, several orders of men in the community have been prepared, by degrees, for a change in government" (Lee in Unger, p. 119). Lee believes that if these things had not occurred, the idea of a new government would have never been thought of. Another point that Lee makes is about the delegates that were chosen to go to the convention. He says that the intentional purpose of the convention was to amend

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.

After gaining their independence from Great Britain in 1776, the American colonies were struggling to establish a new stable nation. Many plans such as the Articles of Confederation “ which reflected Americans’ recent experience with England, kept the national government weak and dependence on the states (68), were proposed to unify the country as a whole. However, the Articles of Confederation poses many challenges because it gives too much power to the states. As the results, “the states had a difficult time standing up to foreign powers (69), this led to the introduction of the Constitution. In contrast to the Articles of

“When the people fear the government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people there is liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson. In May of 1787, 55 people decided that the Articles of Confederation was useless and restricted. The Articles of Confederation was unable to provide a court system, a chief executive and way to make the central government able to force states to pay taxes. The Constitution was falling apart and these people did not want this Constitution to be inequitable. The truth about tyanny in Maddison eyes is ¨The accumulation of all powers in the same hands, weather of one, a few or many (is) the defintion of tyranny.¨

Before the Constitution, the thirteen colonies had what was called the Articles of Confederation, which was their version of today’s U.S. Constitution that started in 1781. The Articles ended up being a problem a few years later. At first, it was made to help the government throughout the years, but it was not until 1786, where both the federalist and anti-federalist believed it was time for a replacement of the Articles of Confederation (2013, p. 23-24). It was not for the help of Shay’s Rebellion which convinced them that it was time for a change. The Shay’s Rebellion was an uprising of the farmers being led by Daniel Shays. Many farmers, who wished for self-sufficiency, grew angry “as the State of Massachusetts imposed more taxes to pay its debts, and allowed local law enforcement officials—sheriffs, constables, justices of the peace—the power to enforce the will of the government, to arrest those who refused to pay taxes and fomented rebellion, and to imprison

Federalist are those who wanted a stronger nationalist government and the officialization of the constitution for them to properly manage the debt and the tensions occurred during the American Revolution. They had wealthy and educated leaders like Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin franklin, George Washington,