Federalists Vs Constitution

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.

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

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

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 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.

Federalists lived mostly in cities and not only supported but originally came up with the Constitution. Some well-known Federalists were John Adams,

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.

The ratification controversy pitted supporters of the Constitution, who claimed the name "Federalists," against a loosely organized group known as "Antifederalists." The Antifederalists denounced

Those that wanted the changes were called “The Federalists” and those that didn’t want the change were called “The Anti-Federalists”. George

On the other hand, Anti-Federalists were against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Unlike the Federalists, many of the Anti-Federalists were not included in the deliberations on the new constitution; they were not selected as delegates to the constitutional convention. Anti-Federalists were in favor of a confederacy; a system where the central government exercises no control over subunit governments (i.e. states) and acts for the subunits. Therefore, their name, Anti-Federalists, is not a good depiction of what they actually supported. Unlike the Federalists, they Anti-Federalists did not have as much time to prepare and organize for the ratification debates because many of them were not included in the U.S. Constitutions

The United States of America was founded on a Constitution that was supposed to preserve our freedoms and certain liberties. All Americans at that time wanted to keep America a free an independent nation with rights for its people. However there was two different groups, the Federalists lead by Alexander Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson, which thought this could be achieved in very different ways.

They had been in love with the thought of liberty and believed foreseen rights for man would be good for man’s nature. Knowingly experiencing tyranny from the grand countries, the Fathers constructed the Constitution very carefully in order to avoid tyranny and a government for the people, by the people, and of the people would be developed. The First Amendment was created to ensure that the government would not and could not interfere with American citizens basic civil rights. Being that this Amendment was so important, many states refused to approve such documents as the Constitution until there were amendments that would protect people’s rights in the future. The Founding Fathers made the constitution to where eventually even in today’s days it would protect the rights of American citizens. There is always leeway with in the amendments to where not only does it protect the people of the past, but it protects the

When the Constitution was written the 13 states had to approve of it therefore it might pass since the North American nation may be a federal republic. it absolutely was contentious as a result of anti-federalists felt a centralized was took robust and that they needed a confederation with robust states rights and a weak central government. The Articles of Confederation was originally purported to be our guiding law however they government was took weak and then the Constitution replaced it despite continued opposition from anti-federalists. essentially the question is asking you to decide on either supporting the constitution and a centralized or opposing it just like the

Two political groups emerged during the debate over whether to pass a new constitution or not after the Articles of Confederation failed. These two political groups were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The two political groups had very different ideas and opinions about government. The Federalist group was in favor of a federal system with a strong national government. The Anti-Federalist group however, opposed the constitution and the strong national government it would create.

When one thinks of government, one thinks of The White House, the president, healthcare, and money. Yet, from reading the chapters now one will think a bit about the history of our government, the people that began to embrace the opportunity to stand up for what they deemed right or wrong. Then we think about the people who started and molded our government and all the costs and values that came after. The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and George Washington, believed the government was meant to be run by the privileged and wealthy of the states, while on the other hand The Antifederalist; Patrick Henry, George Mason, Gerry Elbridge, and George Clinton thought the government should be for the people and opportunity.