Federalists Vs Anti Federalist

The Anti-federalist were the people who opposed the sanction of the constitution. They were Samuel Adams and John Hancock etc. They believed that the ratification of the constitution will lead to corruption and abuse of power by the government. The suggested constitution did not benefit the people as it should and did not have an assurance of the people’s right to assembly or bear arms. Anti-federalist believed in controlling government authority, therefore with the assumption that the new ratification will be most favorable to the wealthy, it was a threat to their beliefs— meaning that the poorer citizens will not be able to exercise their liberty for fear of double standard by the elite rulers. Most Anti-federalist were farmers and lower class citizens, so we could understand why they were intimidated by the rich and powerful Federalist— who had backgrounds of educations and could have easily manipulate the system for their own gratification.

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

They believe the Federal Government will drain any power from the states. Their thoughts are that our country is too large to be governed by a national government, and to support the citizens at the same time. They argue a strong federal government takes away from the individual rights of the people. This group is also strongly against having a one strong power in charge. They want to lean as far away from anything that has a similarity to the monarchy of England. This specific group of people supports the Articles of Confederation. Patrick Henry, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, John Hancock, Mercy Otis

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

Most Americans did not trust the new government that was in place, but the Anti-Federalist was really skeptical of the government in general and strong national government. So in not trusting the government they did not approve of the new constitution. They were afraid it created a government that the people could not manage. Many notable Americans were Anti-Federalists. Some of the creators of the Anti-Federalist papers included George Mason and Elbridge Gerry. Both were present the Philadelphia Convention but had declined to sign the constitution. The Anti-Federalist believed that the Constitution had many imperfections. The Anti-Federalist believed the Constitution should have been constructed in a more public place and not behind closed

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.

What is the government’s purpose? As defined by Bastiat, a French economist and author, it is “the organization of the natural right of lawful defense… for the purpose… of doing what they have a right to do, to secure persons, liberties, and properties, and to maintain each in its right, so as to cause justice to reign over all” (The Law 3). Therefore, if the government is doing something other than acting to protect the lives, liberties, or property of its citizens, it is stepping out of its bounds. In regards to the federal government, it has done this to an extreme. Before discussing the problems with the federal government’s megalomania, it is vital to understand the

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were created in response to the United States Constitution. In 1787, the Second Continental Congress called for a federal convention. This meeting in Philadelphia came to create the U.S Constitution. It originally was held to revise the Articles of Confederation, but due to the mindsets of many proponents present at the convention, like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and the vision of creating a new government rather than fixing the old one, the United States Constitution was formed. Once this was sent to congress it was submitted to the states for ratification. In response, many articles and letters were submitted to the public criticizing the proposition. These articles and letters are where the Anti-Federalist papers are derived from. Although there was opposition to the Constitution, many were in its favor. In response to these criticizing papers, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote papers in the constitutions defense. These were come to be known as the Federalist papers. Two papers in particular, Federalist 51 and Anti--Federalist 51, are written on the topic of checks and balances and how this relates to a separation of powers within the national government. These arguments were successful due to their primary points of contention and strong arguments proposed.

During the Constitutional Convention, the Federalists and Anti Federalists disagreed on many aspects of the Constitution.The Federalists wanted a strong central government while the Anti Federalists were more for state rights. That is just a small fraction of the many arguments that these two factions disagreed upon. The Constitution was eventually ratified with the Federalists compromising with the Anti Federalists by adding The Bill of Rights, a list of the general rights that a citizen was entitled to. Although the Bill of Rights gives us our inalienable rights, the government has compromised our rights to a significant extent many times in history due to fear, corruption, and control.

In the year 1787 a fierce debate over the ratification of the Constitution took place in the United States. The young nation suffered from a government too weak to handle its problems but with citizens wary and skeptical of strong, central governments. This is where the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists took place, the debate that would set American ideals into stone with the ratification of the Constitution and the later-added Bill of Rights. The Federalists believed in a stronger central government to help overcome the struggles the fledgling nation faced while the Anti-federalists believed that the Constitution did not do enough to secure the rights of the people from a tyranny not unlike that of King George’s. Throughout this

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.

When attempting to ratify the Constitution the delegates were split into two different parties which were the Federalists and Antifederalists. The main difference between the two parties as stated in We the People was that the Federalists wanted a strong national government while the Antifederalists wanted a strong state government and were actually against the Constitution that was proposed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 (Ginsberg, 56). There were three main areas of contention between the groups which was representation, tyranny or unjust rule by those in power, and how they should limit government power.

As Abraham Lincoln famously stated in his Gettysburg Address, government is “of the people, by the people, [and] for the people” (Lincoln). In the memoir The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama, the disconnected world of politics is explored, with the aim of finding the essence of American government, the body that was able to keep America united through civil rights struggles, numerous wars, and financial depressions. That unifying force, through the government, is the American people, all of their joint morals, convictions, and goals that they share, Obama portrays the government as an administrative body meant to serve all of its people, stand above all of the differences that pit different groups of people against